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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 2, 2026 has been entered.
The Examiner notes that an identical amendment to the claims filed on October 20, 2025 were entered on November 5, 2025.
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.
Claims 1-12, 14, 15, and 17-21 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Major et al. [US 2013/0077074] in view of Wald et al. [US 2015/0362660].
For claims 1, 14 and 17, Major teaches an optical system (see Figs. 2 and 4), comprising: an optical element (M2); and
a heating arrangement (100, 102, see Figs. 2, and 4, 6-12), comprising:
a beam shaping unit (102); and
wherein the beam shaping unit comprises a microstructured element (118-418),
the microstructured element is configured to deflect a second portion (first portion of claim 17) of the beam of electromagnetic radiation from the microstructured element to an optical element (light deflected by element 118-418 that forms the intensity distribution pattern 108, see [0074]).
Major fails to teach an intensity sensor, the microstructured element is configured to deflect a first portion of a beam of electromagnetic radiation from the microstructured element to the intensity sensor; the first portion of the beam of electromagnetic radiation is different from the second portion of the beam of electromagnetic radiation; and the optical element is located a distance from the intensity sensor.
Wald teaches an intensity sensor (52, 56, see Fig. 17), a coupling-out element is configured to deflect a first portion (second portion of claim 17) of a beam of electromagnetic radiation from the coupling-out element to the intensity sensor (decoupled light 11 by coupling out element including diffractive optical or refractive optical element, see [0083] and Figs. 16 and 17); the first portion of the beam of electromagnetic radiation is different from the second portion of the beam of electromagnetic radiation (decoupled light 11 is separated from illumination beam 15, see Fig. 16); and the optical element (optical unit 46, see Fig. 16) is located a distance from the intensity sensor (52, see Fig. 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate deflecting a first portion to an intensity sensor as taught by Wald in the heating arrangement as taught by Major in order to provide feedback control to ensure a desired amount of energy is provided to the mirror.
For claim 2, Major teaches the microstructured element comprises a diffractive optical element (see [0072]).
For claim 3, Major teaches the microstructured element comprises a refractive optical element (see [0080] and [0081]).
For claim 4, Major teaches the microstructured element comprises a plurality of separate regions configured to deflect different sub-portions of the second portions of the beam of electromagnetic radiation incident on the microstructured element into directions that differ from one another (see [0019]), and Wald teaches deflecting the first portion of the beam (see Fig. 17).
For claims 5 and 7, Major teaches the heating arrangement comprises a plurality of paths (see Fig. 7), in the combination, Wald teaches the first portion may be incident on a plurality of intensity sensors (see [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of sensors as taught by Wald in each path as taught by Major in order to determine beam characteristics for each beam to ensure uniform application, or desired differences.
For claim 6, in the combination with microstructured element as taught by Major, Wald teaches separate regions of the coupling-out element deflect the different subportions of the second portion of the beam of electromagnetic radiation to intensity sensors that differ from one another (coupling out a plurality of partial beams, see [0023], [0059]-[0060], and [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of separate regions to provide a plurality of sub-portions as taught by Wald in the microstructured element as taught by Major in order to measure different aspects of the beam to gather information other than intensity, such as focus or beam shape.
For claim 8, Major teaches a further beam shaping unit configured to shape a beam of the electromagnetic radiation travelling from the radiation source to a further optical element (see Fig. 7).
For claims 9, 18 and 19, in the combination with microstructured element as taught by Major, Wald teaches a driving unit configured to drive/adjust an electromagnetic radiation source that generates the first and second portions of the beam of electromagnetic radiation based on based on the first portion (second portion of claims 18 and 19) of the beam of electromagnetic radiation that is deflected by the coupling-out element to the intensity sensor (signal-connected to a central control/regulating device 53 to regulate output power, see [0104]).
For claims 10 and 11, in the combination with microstructured element as taught by Major, Wald teaches a control unit configured to control a power of the radiation source based on the first portion of the beam of electromagnetic radiation that is deflected by the coupling-out element to the intensity sensor (signal-connected to a central control/regulating device 53 to regulate output power, see [0104]).
For claim 12, Major teaches the optical element comprises a mirror (M2, see Figs. 2 and 4).
For claim 15, Major teaches the optical system is a microlithographic projection exposure apparatus (see Fig. 1).
For claim 20, Major teaches heating the optical element to reduce a spatial and/or temporal variation of a temperature distribution in the optical element (spatial intensity distribution, see Fig. 5 and [0074]).
For claim 21, Major teaches the deflected second portion of electromagnetic radiation does not enter the beam shaping unit (exits 102, see Figs. 2, 4, and 6-12), and Wald teaches the deflected first portion of the beam of electromagnetic radiation does not enter the beam shaping unit (exiting waveguide 1, see Figs. 16 and 17).
Claim 22 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Major in view of Wald as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ehrmann et al. [US 2016/0202118].
For claim 22, Major and Ward do not teach deflected first and second portions of the beam of electromagnetic radiation are deflected from the same location on the microstructured element.
Ehrmann teaches deflected first and second portions of the beam of electromagnetic radiation are deflected from the same location on the microstructured element (higher orders used for detection, see [0092] and [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide higher order diffraction from the same location of a diffractive element for intensity measurement as taught by Ehrmann in the detection as taught by Major and Wald in order to use light that would otherwise be outside the aperture of the optics or to provide the detector outside the main beam path.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues on pages 6-9, regarding claim 1, that the combination of Major and Wald fails provide the claimed subject matter of a microstructured element that deflects a first portion of light to an intensity sensor, and that deflects a second portion of light to an optical element, wherein the first portion of light is different from the second portion of light, because neither Major nor Wald teach an element that deflects a first portion of light to an intensity sensor, and that deflects a second portion of light to an optical element, wherein the first portion of light is different from the second portion of light.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Major is relied upon to teach the microstructured element, demonstrated by at least the diffractive optical element 118 as shown in Fig. 6 and the operation described in paragraphs [0072]-[0076]. The diffractive optical element deflects light at a plurality of angles to generate a desired angular distribution such that a deflected second portion is incident on the surface 104 of mirror 102 in a desired heating profile. Major fails to describe that the angularly deflected light includes a first portion of light that is deflected by the optical element 118 to an intensity sensor. Wald teaches in Figs. 16 and 17, deflecting a first portion of the exiting light that is deflected/coupled-out from the main beam of light by an coupling-out mirror 20 to the intensity sensor 52/56. Paragraph [0104] describes that the measured intensity allows for determining deviation between the actual power and the desired power of the light source. Wald also teaches in paragraph [0083] that: As an alternative to the mirror or prism […] a coupling-out element of the coupling-out device for coupling out the coupling-out illumination light partial beam 11 can also comprise at least one lens element and/or at least one diffractive optical element. Wald is not relied upon to teach a deflecting of second portion of light, but instead deflecting a first portion of light using a diffractive optical element or refractive optical element for monitoring the power output of a light source. In the combination, Major teaches a diffractive optical element that deflects light to create an angular distribution of light that heats the surface of a mirror and Wald teaches directing a first portion of light deflected by a diffraction optical element to a light sensor along a path different than the main light path, thereby meeting the salient subject matter of claim 1.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/Steven H Whitesell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759