DETAILED ACTION
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anonymous Research Disclose [ARD, “Piezo-transducer layout for adaptive optics” cited in the IDS filed on 11/14/2023 as NPL item 1].
For claim 1, ARD teaches an apparatus (lithographic exposure system, see page 1) comprising:
a projection objective (optical system of the exposure system, page 1), comprising:
a component which comprises an optical element (deformable mirror, page 1) and an actuator (actuator pads I and II, see Figs. 2a-2c),
wherein:
the optical element has an outer surface with a rear side (back side of the mirror, see page 1);
the actuator comprises a first actuator pad and a second actuator pad interconnected with the first actuator pad (actuator pads I and II interconnect as shown in Figs. 2a-2c);
the first and second pads directly contact the rear side of the outer surface of the optical element so that the first and second pad are configured to at least locally deform the optical element (deform the mirror though contact with the back of the mirror, see pages 1 and 2);
and the apparatus has a scanning direction (y direction, see Fig. 2);
the apparatus is a projection exposure apparatus (lithographic exposure apparatus); and
one of the following holds:
each of the first and second actuator pads has a peripheral contour meandering around the scanning direction of the apparatus (see Fig. 2(b)); or each of the first and second actuator pads has a peripheral contour that is straight and aligned at an angle relative to the scanning direction of the apparatus (see Fig. 2a).
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 26-28 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARD in view of La Fiandra [US 5,745,278].
For claim 26, ARD fails to explicitly teach a controller configured to control the first and second pads, wherein each of the first and second pads comprises holes connecting the first and second pads to the controller.
La Fiandra teaches a controller configured to control the first and second pads (the control electronics cause selective ones of the leads 30, 32 or 54' to be energized by a voltage source thereby causing an elongation of the involved actuator 10, see col. 3 lines 20-30), wherein each of the first and second pads comprises holes connecting the first and second pads to the controller (holes for accommodating wires, see Fig. 5B).
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 the control and through holes as taught by La Fiandra in the actuator array as taught by ARD in order to independently control each actuator and improve the wavefront correction capability of the device.
For claims 27 and 28, ARD fails to explicitly teach the actuator is embodied in the form of an actuator matrix comprising a peripheral region; the first actuator pad is arranged at the peripheral region of the actuator matrix; and the first actuator pad is divided into a partial actuator pad and a peripheral actuator pad, wherein the partial actuator pad is configured to be independently controllable from the peripheral actuator pad, a controller configured to control the partial actuator pad and the peripheral actuator pad, wherein the partial actuator pad and the peripheral actuator pad are independently connected to the controller so that the controller is configured to control the partial actuator pad independently of the peripheral actuator pad.
La Fiandra teaches the actuator is embodied in the form of an actuator matrix (matrix of actuators in arrays 8, see Figs. 5A and 5B and col. 2 line 63-col. 3 line 11 and lines 20-33) comprising a peripheral region (array at the periphery); the first actuator pad is arranged at the peripheral region of the actuator matrix (peripheral array 8); and the first actuator pad is divided into a partial actuator pad and a peripheral actuator pad (peripheral array and interior array, see Fig. 5A), wherein the partial actuator pad is configured to be independently controllable from the peripheral actuator pad, a controller configured to control the partial actuator pad and the peripheral actuator pad, wherein the partial actuator pad and the peripheral actuator pad are independently connected to the controller so that the controller is configured to control the partial actuator pad independently of the peripheral actuator pad (each of the actuators are electively controlled, col. 3 lines 20-33).
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 the control as taught La Fiandra in the control of the device disclosed by ARD in order to provide improved wavefront correction capability of the device.
For claim 38, ARD fails to explicitly teach the first and second actuator pads are bonded to the rear side of the outer surface of the optical element.
La Fiandra teaches the first and second actuator pads are bonded to the rear side of the outer surface of the optical element (mated to rear surface 45 of plate 44, see col. 3 lines 5-10),
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 the control and through holes as taught by La Fiandra in the actuator array as taught by ARD in order to ensure the mirror is secured to the actuators when the mirror is deformed when the actuators are at different heights.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARD in view of Hakvoort et al. [US 2018/0164581].
For claim 39, ARD fails to explicitly teach an illumination optical unit; a projection optical unit having object field in an object plane and an image field in an image place; a holder in the object plane, wherein: the illumination optical unit is configured to illuminate an object held by the holder; the projection optical unit is configured to project the object into the image field; and the holder is configured to move in the scanning direction of the apparatus.
Hakvoort teaches an apparatus in Fig. 6 comprising an illumination optical unit (ILL); a projection optical unit (PO) having object field in an object plane (OS) and an image field in an image place (IS); a holder in the object plane (see [0100]), wherein: the illumination optical unit is configured to illuminate an object (M) held by the holder; the projection optical unit is configured to project the object into the image field; and the holder is configured to move in the scanning direction of the apparatus (y direction).
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 the lithographic apparatus as taught by Hakvoort in the lithographic apparatus as taught by ARD in order to provide a known configuration for exposing a reticle pattern onto a semiconductor substrate to manufacture a semiconductor device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 6, and 29-37 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The previously cited prior art fails to teach: “the actuator matrix each of the first and second actuator pads comprises holes configured to contact the actuator, and the holes are configured to reduce a cumulative length of edge sections of the holes extending on an axis parallel to a scanning direction of the apparatus first and second actuator pads to a controller” as recited in claim 3, “each of the first and second actuator pads comprises holes having a first length along a first direction which is parallel to the scanning direction of the apparatus and a second length along a second direction perpendicular to the scanning direction of the apparatus, the first length being less than the second length,” as recited in claim 29, and “each of the first and second actuator pads comprises holes, and holes in adjacent rows along a first direction parallel to the scanning direction of the apparatus are offset from each other along a second direction perpendicular to the scanning direction of the apparatus,” as recited in claim 35. Claims 5, 6, 30-34, 36, and 37 depend therefrom.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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
Prosecution Insights