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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the features canceled from the claim(s):
“a spectrometer, configured to detect whether a wavelength of the output yellow light meets the requirement of a photolithography technique” in claim 1.
“a light equalizing plate, configured to perform background illumination on the output yellow light meeting the requirement of the photolithography technique” in claim 1.
No new matter should be entered.
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
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 2 recites the transitional phrase “at least comprising”. The term “at least” in the phrase “at least comprising” is redundant and should be removed from the transitional phrase since the term “comprising” is inclusive/open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See MPEP § 2111.03 I. Claims 2-7 depend on claim 1 and are therefore also objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is 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 3, line 2 recites the limitation “the filter color wheel is mounted on the lampshade”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claim 3 nor claim 1, in which claim 3 depends on, previously recites ‘a lampshade’. Claim 2 recites “a lampshade”, however, claim 3 does not depend on claim 2. Therefore, claim 3 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes claim 3 is supposed to depend on claim 2. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (TW M398614 U1, note all page number citations recited hereinafter refer to the translated description and claims of Hsu), hereinafter Hsu, in view of Kuwata (JP 2000306819 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hsu teaches an apparatus (abstract, Fig. 1 and 4-5) for filtering a lighting source of a semiconductor appearance detection device (abstract, pg. 2), comprising:
a white light source (Fig. 4-5 point light source 410 which correlates to point source 110 in Fig. 1, pg. 6 “the point light source 110 is, for example, a white light”);
a filter color wheel (Fig. 4-5 wavelength filter 430, pg. 16 “the wavelength filter 430 may be, for example, a rotatable design, and the wavelength filter 430 may have different filtration zones (not shown) to filter out light of different wavelengths”, thus filter 430 is equivalent to a filter color wheel), the filter color wheel being provided with a first color filter plate (see pg. 16), and the first color filter plate being configured to output the white light source as yellow light (pg. 7 “white light or ultraviolet light, after being filtered and converted by the wavelength filtering coating 130, it will produce yellow light with a wavelength greater than 500 nm”, where the filter coating 130 correlates to at least one portion of wavelength filter 430, see pg. 17 second paragraph);
and a light equalizing plate (Fig. 1 microstructure layer 160 and optical film 190 together act as a light equalizing plate, pg. 9 “microstructure layer 160 may actually include multiple light guide structures (not shown) to give the lighting device 100 a uniform light emission effect”, pg. 10 “optical film 190 is, for example, a diffuser, a brightener, or a polarizer, to enhance the light output of the lighting device 100”; the examiner notes that Fig. 4-5 are simplified to show the concept of a rotatable filter and it is the examiner’s position that the elements shown in Fig. 1 configured to output of light, including microstructure layer 160 and optical film 190, would be included in the apparatus of Fig. 4-5), configured to perform background illumination on the output yellow light meeting a requirement of the photolithography technique (see pg. 9-10; see also pg. 2 and pg. 6-7 describing the need to output light having a wavelength above 500 nm such that that enables photolithography techniques are not interfered with, specifically citing yellow light as a desirable output light).
Hsu does not teach a spectrometer, configured to detect whether a wavelength of the output yellow light meets the requirement of a photolithography technique.
Kuwata, which relates to systems that ensure lithography clean rooms are properly illuminated and is thus from the same field of endeavor as Hsu, teaches a spectrometer (Kuwata: Fig. 9 specific wavelength detection device 40 which is functionally equivalent to a spectrometer), configured to detect whether a wavelength of the output yellow light meets the requirement of a photolithography technique (Kuwata: paragraph 0029 “By arranging the specific wavelength detection device 40 in the same manner as the illumination detection device 2, for example, if it is predetermined that the operating device 5 will be placed in either a clean room or under normal lighting, the lighting conditions can be determined quickly. In other words, if no light around 450 nm is detected, the lighting is determined to be a cleanroom fluorescent lamp”; see also paragraphs 0027-0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the apparatus of Hsu to comprise a spectrometer, configured to detect whether a wavelength of the output yellow light meets the requirement of a photolithography technique, as taught by Kuwata, for the purposes of continuously monitoring the output light of the lighting source of Hsu to ensure it is outputting an acceptable wavelength of light is being output, leading to improved operational control over the lighting source (see Kuwata paragraphs 0010-0011, 0029).
Regarding claim 2, Hsu, as modified by Kuwata, teaches the apparatus for filtering a lighting source of a semiconductor appearance detection device according to claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the white light source is provided with a lampshade (Hsu: Fig. 1 sleeve 170 is functionally equivalent to a lampshade, see final paragraph of pg. 9 and first paragraph of pg. 10; the examiner notes that Fig. 4-5 are simplified to show the concept of a rotatable filter and it is the examiner’s position that at least source 410 shown in Fig. 4-5 would similarly comprise sleeve 170).
Regarding claim 3, Hsu, as modified by Kuwata, teaches the apparatus for filtering a lighting source of a semiconductor appearance detection device according to claim 2, as outlined above, but does not teach the filter color wheel is mounted on the lampshade.
However, Hsu teaches that wavelength filtering coating 130 and lens 120 are both included in sleeve 170, which is equivalent to the claimed lampshade (see Hsu Fig. 1). The wavelength filtering coating 130 performs the same function as rotatable wavelength filter 430 (i.e. both components are configured to filter light from a point source to achieve a desired illumination output). Hsu recites that lens 120 and coating 130 are preferably large enough to reduce the probability that light from the point source leaves the lighting apparatus without being converted to yellow light (see Hsu pg. 9 final paragraph through pg. 10 second paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the apparatus of Hsu (as modified by Kuwata) to have the filter color wheel be mounted on the lampshade, for the benefit of reducing the probability that light emitted directly from the white light source leaves the apparatus without being converted into yellow light (see Hsu pg. 9 final paragraph through pg. 10 second paragraph).
Regarding claim 5, Hsu, as modified by Kuwata, teaches the apparatus for filtering a lighting source of a semiconductor appearance detection device according to claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the wavelength of the output yellow light meeting the requirement of the photolithography technique is greater than 450 nm (see Hsu pg. 6-7 and Kuwata paragraph 0029).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Kuwata as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin (US 2005/0157274 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Hsu, as modified by Kuwata, teaches the apparatus for filtering a lighting source of a semiconductor appearance detection device according to claim 1, as outlined above, but does not teach a second color filter plate and a third color filter plate are arranged on the filter color wheel; the second color filter plate completely transmits the white light source; and the third color filter plate is configured to output the white light source as purple light.
Lin, which relates to filter color wheels, teaches a filter color wheel (Lin: Fig. 1 color wheel 14, Fig. 2(c)), the filter color wheel being provided with a first color filter plate being configured to output light as yellow light (Lin: Fig. 2(c) yellow section Y, see paragraphs 0020-0021), a second color filter plate and a third color filter plate are arranged on the filter color wheel (Lin: Fig. 2(c) magenta section M and white light transmitting section W, see paragraphs 0020-0021); the second color filter plate completely transmits the white light source (Lin: paragraph 0021); and the third color filter plate is configured to output the white light source as purple light (Lin: paragraphs 0020-0021; magenta is a shade of purple).
Hsu identifies the benefit of using a filter color wheel so as to emit light from the lighting apparatus having various wavelengths (see Hsu pg. 16-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the filter color wheel of Hsu (as modified by Kuwata) with the filter color wheel of Lin to have a filter color wheel further comprising a second color filter plate and a third color filter plate are arranged on the filter color wheel, the second color filter plate completely transmits the white light source, and the third color filter plate is configured to output the white light source as purple light, for the benefit of enabling the emission of multiple different wavelengths of light from the apparatus, as desired by Hsu.
Regarding claim 6, Hsu, as modified by Kuwata and Lin, teaches the apparatus for filtering a lighting source of a semiconductor appearance detection device according to claim 4, as outlined above, and further teaches the first color filter plate, the second color filter plate and the third color filter plate are sequentially distributed on the filter color wheel in a fan shape (see Lin Fig. 2(c)); and the first color filter plate, the second color filter plate and the third color filter plate are arranged and combined on the filter color wheel to form a circle (see Lin Fig. 2(c)).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Kuwata and Lin as applied to claims 1, 4, and 6 above, and further in view of Yamazaki (JP H07281284 A).
Regarding claim 7, Hsu, as modified by Kuwata and Lin, teaches the apparatus for filtering a lighting source of a semiconductor appearance detection device according to claim 6, as outlined above, but does not teach the white light source is arbitrarily switched on the filter color wheel through the first color filter plate, the second color filter plate and the third color filter plate to output the illumination specified in the yellow light, white light or purple light.
Yamazaki, which relates to filter color wheels, teaches a white light source is arbitrarily switched on a filter color wheel through the various color filter plates of the filter color wheel to output illumination specified by those specific color filter plates (Yamazaki: Fig. 11 white light source 62 and turret filter 63, paragraphs 0110, 0120).
Since the filter color wheel of Hsu (as modified by Kuwata and Lin) comprises first, second, and third color filter plates that output yellow, white, and purple light respectively, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the apparatus of Hsu (as modified by Kuwata and Lin) to have the white light source arbitrarily switched on the filter color wheel through the first color filter plate, the second color filter plate and the third color filter plate to output the illumination specified in the yellow light, white light or purple light, as taught by Yamazaki, for the benefit of controlling the wavelength of light being emitted from the apparatus of Hsu (as modified by Kuwata and Lin).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hu et al. (CN 103841387 A) relates to a color wheel module that includes a detector to detect the output light being emitted.
Ono (JP 2008198888 A) relates to a photolithography stage facility that includes filters to create a clean room environment.
Oh et al. (Oh, Ji Hye, et al. "High-color-quality multipackage phosphor-converted LEDs for yellow photolithography room lamp." IEEE Photonics Journal 7.2 (2015): 1-8.) relates to a multipackage LED unit to create yellow clean room environments to perform photolithographic techniques.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH J HANEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm eastern time.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/NOAH J. HANEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 /MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights