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 Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “exposure pattern forming apparatus” in claim 1. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, “ a second exposure element in the first state different from the first exposure element ” is unclear. Is the first state of the second exposure element different from the first state of the first exposure element? Or is the second exposure element different from the first element but the first state is the same for both exposure element? In order to expedite prosecution, the latter is assumed. Regarding claims 16 and 17, it is unclear if “a region adjacent to the predetermined regio n” is the same as “ a region adjacent to the predetermined region ” in claim 15. Since claim 16 and 17 both depend on claim 15, it is assumed that they are the same. Regarding claim 19, it is unclear if “an exposure amount” in claim 19 is the same as “an exposure amount” in claim 18. Since claim 19 depends on claim 18, it is assumed that it is the same. Regarding claim 27, it is unclear if “at least one optical element” included with a first exposure head is the same “at least one optical element” included with a second exposure head. In order to expedite prosecution, it is assume d that there is one “at least one optical element” associated with the first exposure head and another “at least one optical element” associated with the second exposure head. The remaining claims, not specifically mentioned, are rejected for incorporating the defects from the base claim by dependency. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 does not further limit claim18. While not a verbatim copy of claim 18, claim 19 has the same limitations as claim 18 . Both are directed to relatively moving the workpiece and the exposure pattern forming apparatus. Both are directed to sequentially irradiating the plurality of regions. Both are directed to integrating an exposure amount. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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 - 8, 13, 15, 17-19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Thallner et al. ( Thallner ) (2020/0089121) . Regarding claim 1, Thallner discloses an exposure apparatus (Fig. 1-3) comprising: a light source (7) configured to emit exposure light (para 0201) ; an exposure pattern forming apparatus (1) disposed on an optical path of at least part of the exposure light (Fig. 1-3, para 0201) ; and a controller electrically connected to the exposure pattern forming apparatus (computer, para 0107, 0131, 0136 , “c ommunication between the computer and the DMDs takes place via any desired interface “, “ a section to be exposed is written from the buffer/memory, the second section to be exposed is transmitted from the computer ” ) , wherein the exposure pattern forming apparatus includes a plurality of exposure elements (3, Fig. 4 , para 0210, DMD with a multiplicity of mirrors 3) at least one exposure element of the plurality of exposure elements is configured to irradiate a scheduled exposure region of a workpiece with light of the at least part of the exposure light (para 0211) , and the controller is configured to: control whether the workpiece is irradiated with the exposure light via each of the exposure elements by switching each of the exposure elements to a first state (Fig. 4b, para 0211) or a second state (Fig. 4a, para 0210) ; and integrate an exposure amount in a predetermined region of the scheduled exposure region by sequentially irradiating the predetermined region with light of part of the exposure light via a first exposure element in the first state among the plurality of exposure elements and light of part of the exposure light via a second exposure element in the first state different from the first exposure element among the plurality of exposure elements, in accordance with a relative movement of the workpiece and the exposure pattern forming apparatus (para 0038, 0227, 0228, relative movement of the workpiece, exposure layer 9, and the exposure pattern forming apparatus, DMD 1) . The claimed predetermined region of the scheduled exposure region is interpreted in three different ways: First, Fig. 6a, 6b , para 02 18-0221 discloses a predetermined region of the scheduled exposure region ( 1 6r in Fig. 6a and 1 6l’ in Fig 6b ), the region 16r in Fig. 6a and the region 16l’ in Fig. 6b overlap in sequential irradiation by different exposure elements both in the first state and the exposure amount is integrated at the region , or alternatively, Second, Fig. 10, para 0234 discloses a predetermined region of scheduled exposure region ( the region where the exposure elements 3 form intensity distributions 22, 22’, 22”) and the sequential sum or integration of exposure amount from the intensity distributions 22, 22’, 22” , or alternatively, Third, Fig. 6a, para 0218-022 0, predetermined region of scheduled exposure region (15) is exposed sequentially by a first exposure element on DMD than by second exposure element following the first exposure element as the DMD is scanned in K2y direction and exposed to an integrated exposure amount. Regarding claim 2, Thallner discloses wherein the plurality of exposure elements is two-dimensionally arrayed, and the first exposure element and the second exposure element are exposure elements different from each other in a same row among the plurality of exposure elements (Fig. 4a, the first exposure element for 16r in Fig. 6a and the second exposure element for 16l’ in Fig. 6b would be in a same row, Fig. 10, two mirror 3 are different from each other in a same row) . Regarding claim 3, Thallner discloses wherein the controller is configured to control an integrated exposure amount in the predetermined region of the scheduled exposure region based on the number of exposure elements in the first state that sequentially irradiate the predetermined region with light of part of the exposure light in accordance with a relative movement of the workpiece and the exposure pattern forming apparatus (Fig. 6a, 6b, para 0218-0221 and Fig. 10, para 0234) . Regarding claim 4, Thallner discloses wherein the controller is configured to control an integrated exposure time in the predetermined region based on the number of exposure elements in the first state (para 0140, adjusting speed of scrolling affects exposure time and para 0158, “ irradiate light rays of different intensity onto the DMD within a well- defined time period ” where inherently intensity depends on the number of exposure elements) . Regarding claim 5, Thallner discloses wherein the controller is configured to control a width of a pattern formed in the predetermined region through an exposure process by the exposure light to the predetermined region by controlling an integrated exposure amount in the predetermined region (Fig. 10, para 0234, the width of pattern is changed as intensity distribution 22, 22’, 22” are irradiated) . Regarding claim 6 , Thallner discloses wherein a light amount of a center part in a region where the scheduled exposure region is irradiated with light of part of the exposure light via an exposure element of the plurality of exposure elements is larger than a light amount of a peripheral part in the irradiated region (Fig. 10, intensity profiles 22, 22’, 22” and pixels 23, 23’ all show larger light amount at the center than at peripheral part) . Regarding claim 7, Thallner discloses herein the exposure pattern forming apparatus is a digital mirror device (1, 3, Fig. 4a, 4b) , and the exposure element is a mirror element having a reflection surface configured to reflect light of part of the exposure light (para 0210, 0211) . Regarding claim 8, Thallner discloses wherein the controller integrates an exposure amount in the predetermined region of the scheduled exposure region by sequentially irradiating the predetermined region with light of part of the exposure light via a first exposure element in the first state and light of part of the exposure light via a second exposure element in the first state while relatively moving the workpiece and the exposure pattern forming apparatus (Fig. 6a, 6b, para 0218-0221) . Regarding claim 13, Thallner discloses wherein the controller is configured to: relatively move the workpiece and the exposure pattern forming apparatus along a main-scanning axis (K2y, Fig. 6a) ; further relatively move the workpiece and the exposure pattern forming apparatus along a sub-scanning axis (K2x, Fig. 6b) intersecting the main-scanning axis; and integrate an exposure amount by sequentially irradiating a partial region of the scheduled exposure region along the sub-scanning axis with respect to the predetermined region, in accordance with a relative movement along the sub-scanning axis of the workpiece and the exposure pattern forming apparatus, with light of at least part of the exposure light via each of the plurality of exposure elements in the first state different from one another (para 0218-0221) . Regarding claim 15, Thallner discloses wherein the controller is configured to: relatively move the workpiece and the exposure pattern forming apparatus along a main-scanning axis (Fig. 6 , para 0218-0221, “ area of the layer 9 exposed by means of the write area 4 of the DMD 1 after a movement of the DMD 1 relative to the exposed layer 9 in the K2y direction ”) ; and integrate an exposure amount in a region adjacent to the predetermined region along the main-scanning axis ( Fig. 6a, the region in 15 immediately following predetermined region as DMD is moved along K2y or the main-scanning axis ) by sequentially irradiating the region adjacent to the predetermined region along the main-scanning axis in the scheduled exposure region with light of at least part of the exposure light via each of the plurality of exposure elements in the first state different from one another, in accordance with the relative movement of the workpiece and the exposure pattern forming apparatus ( Fig. 6a, para 0218-0220 ) . Regarding claim 17, Thallner discloses wherein the controller is configured to integrate an exposure amount in a region adjacent to the predetermined region along the main-scanning axis by sequentially irradiating the region adjacent to the predetermined region along the main-scanning axis with light of at least part of the exposure light via each of the plurality of exposure elements in the first state different from one another, while causing the relative movement of the workpiece and the exposure pattern forming apparatus (Fig. 6a, para 0218-0220, as the DMD is moved along K2y or main-scanning axis, the region adjacent to the predetermined region along the main-scanning axis is irradiated with light of at least part of the exposure light via each of the plurality of exposure elements in the first state different from one another ) . Regarding claim 18, Thallner discloses wherein the controller is configured to: relatively move the workpiece and the exposure pattern forming apparatus along a main-scanning axis; and sequentially irradiate a plurality of regions different from the predetermined region along the main-scanning axis in the scheduled exposure region, in accordance with the relative movement of the workpiece and the exposure pattern forming apparatus, with light of at least part of the exposure light via each of the plurality of exposure elements in the first state different from one another, and integrate an exposure amount by irradiation of the light via the plurality of exposure elements in the first state different from one another in each of the plurality of regions to form an exposure region along the main-scanning axis (Fig. 6a, para 0218-0220, a plurality of regions in the main-scanning axis is exposed with the plurality of exposure elements as claimed) . Regarding claim 1 9 , Thallner discloses wherein the controller is configured to sequentially irradiate the plurality of regions along the main-scanning axis in the scheduled exposure region with light of at least part of the exposure light via each of the plurality of exposure elements in the first state different from one another while relatively moving the workpiece and the exposure pattern forming apparatus along the main-scanning axis, and thus integrates an exposure amount by irradiation of the light via the plurality of exposure elements in the first state different from one another in each of the plurality of regions to form an exposure region along the main-scanning axis (Fig. 6a, para 0218-0220, a plurality of regions in the main-scanning axis is exposed with the plurality of exposure elements as claimed) . Regarding claim 22, Thallner discloses wherein the controller is configured to switch at least part of exposure elements of the plurality of exposure elements to the first state or the second state in accordance with the relative movement of the workpiece and the exposure pattern forming apparatus, based on exposure pattern information including information regarding a position of the scheduled exposure region on the workpiece and information regarding an integrated exposure amount in each region of the scheduled exposure region (para 0107 “ structural data define how the mirrors of the DMD are switched as a function of the location, in order to change the exposure ray in such a manner that the desired pattern falls onto the layer to be exposed ”, along with Fig. 6a, 6b, para 0218-0220) . Claim(s) 1 -3, 5-8 , 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Osaka (2019/0285988) . Regarding claim 1, Osaka discloses an exposure apparatus (Fig. 1, para 0023) comprising: a light source (LS) configured to emit exposure light; an exposure pattern forming apparatus (DMD, para 0023) disposed on an optical path of at least part of the exposure light; and a controller (CTR, para 0024) electrically connected to the exposure pattern forming apparatus, wherein the exposure pattern forming apparatus includes a plurality of exposure elements (mirrors of DMD, Fig. 2, para 0027) , at least one exposure element of the plurality of exposure elements is configured to irradiate a scheduled exposure region of a workpiece with light of the at least part of the exposure light (D1, D2, D3, Fig. 2, para 0027) , and the controller is configured to: control whether the workpiece is irradiated with the exposure light via each of the exposure elements by switching each of the exposure elements to a first state or a second state (para 0027) ; and integrate an exposure amount in a predetermined region (area with distribution All1 in Fig. 5, area with distribution All2 in Fig. 6) of the scheduled exposure region by sequentially irradiating the predetermined region (P1 to P4) with light of part of the exposure light via a first exposure element in the first state among the plurality of exposure elements and light of part of the exposure light via a second exposure element in the first state different from the first exposure element among the plurality of exposure elements, in accordance with a relative movement of the workpiece and the exposure pattern forming apparatus (Fig. 5, 6, para 0034, 0035, 0038 , moving in scanning direction, Sy, “ AII1 represents the distribution (intensity distribution) of the integrated exposure amount at each of the four positions aligned in the direction Sx . In this way, the final pattern shape is formed by summing the light amounts in the direction Sy at each of the four spots arranged in the direction Sx ” ) . Regarding claim 2 , Osaka discloses wherein the plurality of exposure elements is two-dimensionally arrayed, and the first exposure element and the second exposure element are exposure elements different from each other in a same row among the plurality of exposure elements (Fig. 4-6) . Regarding claim 3 , Osaka discloses wherein the controller is configured to control an integrated exposure amount in the predetermined region of the scheduled exposure region based on the number of exposure elements in the first state that sequentially irradiate the predetermined region with light of part of the exposure light in accordance with a relative movement of the workpiece and the exposure pattern forming apparatus (Fig. 4, para 0032, 0033, “ a pattern located at Sx =0 is intermittently exposed with light spots represented by black points on the Sy-axis during substrate scanning and the light energy is integrated, thereby obtaining a predetermined exposure amount ”) . Regarding claim 5 , Osaka discloses wherein the controller is configured to control a width of a pattern formed in the predetermined region through an exposure process by the exposure light to the predetermined region by controlling an integrated exposure amount in the predetermined region (Fig. 5, para 0035) . Regarding claim 6 , Osaka discloses wherein a light amount of a center part in a region where the scheduled exposure region is irradiated with light of part of the exposure light via an exposure element of the plurality of exposure elements is larger than a light amount of a peripheral part in the irradiated region (Fig. 5, 6, show the exposure light amount larger at the center, para 0035, 0038) . Regarding claim 7 , Osaka discloses wherein the exposure pattern forming apparatus is a digital mirror device, and the exposure element is a mirror element having a reflection surface configured to reflect light of part of the exposure light (Fig. 1, 2, para 0027) . Regarding claim 8, Osaka discloses wherein the controller integrates an exposure amount in the predetermined region of the scheduled exposure region by sequentially irradiating the predetermined region with light of part of the exposure light via a first exposure element in the first state and light of part of the exposure light via a second exposure element in the first state while relatively moving the workpiece and the exposure pattern forming apparatus (Fig. 5, 6, para 0035, 0038) . Regarding claim 20, Osaka discloses wherein the controller is configured to: relatively move the workpiece and the exposure pattern forming apparatus along a main-scanning axis (Fig. 5, para 0035) ; and integrate an exposure amount in a region adjacent to the predetermined region by sequentially irradiating along a sub-scanning axis orthogonal to the main-scanning axis in the scheduled exposure region (P1, P2, P3, P4) , in accordance with a relative movement of the workpiece and the exposure pattern forming apparatus along the main-scanning axis, with light of part of the exposure light via a third exposure element in the first state among the plurality of exposure elements and light of part of the exposure light via a fourth exposure element in the first state among the plurality of exposure elements, and the third exposure element and the fourth exposure element are each an exposure element different from the first exposure element and the second exposure element (different exposure elements, first, second, third and fourth corresponding to positions P1-P4, respectively) . Regarding claim 21, Osaka discloses wherein the controller is configured to control an integrated exposure amount between the predetermined region and a region adjacent to the predetermined region along the sub-scanning axis, and is configured to control an interval in the sub-scanning axis between a pattern formed in the predetermined region (between P1, P2, P3, P4) through an exposure process with the exposure light to the predetermined region and the region adjacent to the predetermined region along the sub-scanning axis and a pattern formed in the region adjacent to the predetermined region along the sub-scanning axis (All1, All2, Fig. 5, 6, para 0035, 0038) . 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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osaka in view of Nishikawa (2007/0121437). Regarding claim 9, Osaka discloses a collimating optical system (IL1, FE1, IL2, para 0026) and an objective optical system (P03, para 0030) to concentrate light towards the workpiece (PL). However, Osaka does not disclose the collimating optical system configured to collimate light of at least part of the exposure light from the exposure pattern forming apparatus; the objective optical system configured to concentrate light of at least part of the exposure light exiting the collimating optical system toward the workpiece; and a driving apparatus configured to displace part of optical members of the collimating optical system along an axis intersecting an optical axis of the objective optical system. Nishikawa discloses an optical recording system (Fig. 7) comprising an objective optical system (8, 10, 11, para 0012), a collimating optical system (2) with a driving apparatus (44) to move the collimating optical system along an axis intersecting an optical axis to cause the position radiated with light to be moved (para 0017). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a collimating optical system to collimate light of at least part of the exposure light from the exposure pattern forming apparatus and an objective optical system to concentrate the light toward the workpiece and to drive the collimating optical system along an axis intersecting an optical axis of the objective optical system to position the light on the workpiece. Claim (s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thallner et al. ( Thallner ) . Regarding claim 16, although Thallner discloses wherein the controller is configured to control an integrated exposure amount between the predetermined region and a region adjacent to the predetermined region along the main-scanning axis, and is configured to control an interval in the main-scanning axis between a pattern formed in the predetermined region through an exposure process with the exposure light to the region adjacent to the predetermined region along the main-scanning axis and a pattern formed in the region adjacent to the predetermined region along the main-scanning axis , Thallner discloses controlling an integrated exposure amount between the predetermined region and a region adjacent to the predetermined region along the sub -scanning axis (Fig. 10, para 0234, K direction being the main-scanning direction and X direction being the sub-scanning direction in Thallner , Thallner discloses the regions being washed out more strongly as the intensity distribution parameters increase in all directions, see 23, 23’, 23” ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control an interval in the main-scanning axis between a pattern formed in the predetermined region through an exposure process with the exposure light to the region adjacent to the predetermined region along the main-scanning axis and a pattern formed in the region adjacent to the predetermined region along the main-scanning axis to obtain more homogeneous exposure pattern as taught by Thallner . Claim (s) 23 -26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thallner et al. ( Thallner ) in view of Murakami (JP 2004-304135). Regarding claim 23, Thallner does not disclose wherein the controller is configured to irradiate the predetermined region with light of part of the exposure light via the exposure element in the first state other than a defect exposure element among the plurality of exposure elements in accordance with a relative movement of the workpiece and the exposure pattern forming apparatus so that an integrated exposure amount of the predetermined region of the scheduled exposure region becomes a predetermined exposure amount based on information on the defect exposure element in the plurality of exposure elements. Murakami discloses an exposure device (Fig. 1) comprising an exposure pattern forming apparatus (VPG, para 0047), detecting defects (DE) on VPG using detection device (Fig. 4, para 0052, 0056) and compensating using the spare region (DA1, Fig. 4, para 0056-0064). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a detection device to detect a defect exposure element and based on the number of non-defective exposure pattern elements and controlling the exposure pattern elements so that the integrated exposure amount becomes the predetermined exposure amount. Regarding claim 24, Thallner does not disclose wherein, in a case where at least one exposure element of a first portion of exposure elements among the plurality of exposure elements included in the exposure pattern forming apparatus is the defect exposure element, a second portion of exposure elements different from the first portion among the plurality of exposure elements is used for exposure so that an integrated exposure amount of the predetermined region becomes the predetermined exposure amount instead of the defect exposure element. Murakami discloses the defective element (DE, Fig. 4) in first region and using a second portion of exposure elements (DA1, Fig. 4) so that an integrated exposure amount of the predetermined region becomes the predetermined exposure amount instead of the defect exposure element (para 0056-0064). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to compensate a defect in one area of the exposure pattern forming apparatus by using another area in order to obtain the predetermined exposure amount. Regarding claim 25, Thallner discloses wherein the plurality of exposure elements are two-dimensionally arrayed (Fig. 4). However, Thallner does not disclose wherein part of the first portion and part of the second portion are included in a same row among the plurality of exposure elements, and in a case where at least one of the exposure elements among part of the exposure elements of the first portion in the row is the defect exposure element, the controller is configured to irradiate the predetermined region, in accordance with a relative movement of the workpiece and the exposure pattern forming apparatus, with light of part of the exposure light via at least one of the exposure elements among part of the exposure elements of the second portion in the row instead of the defect exposure element. Although Murakami does not disclose that the first portion and the second portion are in a same row, Murakami discloses wherein the plurality of exposure elements are two-dimensionally arrayed (Fig. 4), and the first portion with defect (DE) and the second portion (DA1) in the same column. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Thallner by rearranging the second portion or the spare region DA1 of Murakami so that the first portion with defect and the second portion for compensation are in the same row since it has been held that rearranging parts of invention involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding claim 26, Thallner discloses wherein the plurality of exposure elements are two-dimensionally arrayed (Fig. 4). However, Thallner does not disclose a light detection unit configured to detect an intensity distribution of light of at least part of the exposure light via at least part of the plurality of exposure elements, and the controller is configured to generate information on the defect exposure element including information regarding a position of the defect exposure element in the two-dimensional array, based on the intensity distribution of light detected by the light detection unit. Murakami discloses a light detection unit (93c) to detect an intensity distribution of light of at least part of the exposure light via at least part of the plurality of exposure elements, and the controller is configured to generate information on the defect exposure element including information regarding a position of the defect exposure element in the two-dimensional array, based on the intensity distribution of light detected by the light detection unit (para 0052-0056). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the detection unit of Murakami to the invention of Thallner in order to find defect and detect intensity distribution to ensure proper exposure amount is integrated. Claim (s) 27 -29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thallner et al. ( Thallner ) in view of Osaka. Regarding claim 27, Thallner discloses in Fig. 3, a first exposure head and a second exposure head (para 0207-0209) , wherein the controller is configured to radiate light of part of the exposure light via at least one exposure element among a plurality of exposure elements of the exposure pattern forming apparatus in the first exposure head and to irradiate a first scheduled exposure region of a workpiece with light of at least part of the exposure light, the controller is configured to radiate light of part of the exposure light via at least one exposure element among a plurality of exposure elements of an exposure pattern forming apparatus in the second exposure head and is configured to irradiate a second scheduled exposure region of a workpiece with light of at least part of the exposure light (Fig. 3, para 0209, “ at least two DMDs 1 being used, by means of which the layer 9 can be exposed at two different positions simultaneously ” with Fig. 6a, para 0218-0220 ) , and the controller is configured to: repeat a relative movement of the workpiece along a main-scanning axis and the first exposure head and the second exposure head, and a relative movement of the workpiece along a sub-scanning axis orthogonal to the main-scanning axis and the first exposure head and the second exposure head; and irradiate the first scheduled exposure region with light of at least part of the exposure light via at least one exposure element among a plurality of exposure elements of the exposure pattern forming apparatus in the first exposure head and irradiate the second scheduled exposure region with light of at least part of the exposure light via at least one exposure element among a plurality of exposure elements of the exposure pattern forming apparatus in the second exposure head, sequentially in accordance with the relative movement of the workpiece, the first exposure head, and the second exposure head, and thus alternately arrange and form a first exposure region and a second exposure region along the sub-scanning axis (para 0218-022, shows movement in main-scanning direction, Fig. 6b shows movement in sub-scanning direction and then movement in main-scanning direction) . However, Thallner does not disclose at least one optical element included with the first exposure head and a second exposure head. Osaka discloses in Fig. 1, an exposure head (DMD) and at least one optical element (IL1, FE1, IL2, MLA, para 0026, 0028). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain an uniform illuminance distribution as taught by Osaka. Regarding claim 28, although Thallner does not disclose wherein any one of the second scheduled exposure regions is positioned between two of the first scheduled exposure regions , Thanllner discloses wherein a plurality of the first exposure regions and a plurality of the second exposure regions are provided (Fig. 3 and 6a, 6b). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the first exposure head and the second exposure head such that one of the second scheduled exposure regions is positioned between two of the first scheduled exposure regions in order to obtain the desired pattern since it has been held that arranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding claim 2 9 , although Thallner does not disclose wherein the one first scheduled exposure region is adjacent to the another first scheduled exposure region to form a first scheduled exposure region group, and any one first scheduled exposure region group is positioned between two of the second scheduled exposure regions , Thallner discloses wherein a plurality of the first exposure regions and a plurality of the second exposure regions are provided (Fig. 3, and 6a, 6b). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the first exposure head and the second exposure head such that the one first scheduled exposure region is adjacent to the another first scheduled exposure region to form a first scheduled exposure region group, and any one first scheduled exposure region group is positioned between two of the second scheduled exposure regions in order to obtain the desired pattern since it has been held that arranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10-12 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 10, Thallner et al. in view of Nishikawa does not disclose control ling the driving apparatus to displace the part of optical members along an axis intersecting the optical axis so that part of a region of the scheduled exposure region along a sub-scanning axis intersecting the main-scanning axis with respect to the predetermined region is irradiated with light of at least part of the exposure light via at least one exposure element of the plurality of exposure elements in combination with the rest of the limitations. Regarding claim 11, Thallner et al. in view of Nishikawa does not disclose the driving apparatus configured to displace the part of optical members along an axis intersecting the optical axis so that an irradiation position of light of at least part of the exposure light is displaced at an irradiation interval smaller than an irradiation interval of light of at least part of the exposure light in the scheduled exposure region corresponding to an interval between adjacent exposure elements two-dimensionally arrayed in combination with the rest of the limitations. Regarding claim 12, Thallner et al. in view of Nishikawa does not disclose repeat ing displacement of the part of optical members along an axis intersecting the optical axis and a relative movement of the workpiece and the exposure pattern forming apparatus along the main-scanning axis; and sequentially irradiate each of a plurality of regions in the scheduled exposure region, in accordance with the relative movement of the workpiece and the exposure pattern forming apparatus, with light of at least part of the exposure light via each of the plurality of exposure elements in the first state different from one another, and thus an exposure amount is integrated by irradiation of the light via the plurality of exposure elements in the first state different from one another in each of the plurality of regions to form an exposure region along an axis intersecting the main-scanning axis and the sub-scanning axis. in combination with the rest of the limitations. Claim 14 depends on claim 12. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jain et al. (6,312,134) discloses in claim 4, an exposure apparatus comprising an exposure pattern forming apparatus (spatial light modulator 3) and a predetermined region with integrated or cumulative exposure intensity. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PETER B KIM whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2120 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Toan Ton can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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 March 12, 2026