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. Information Disclosure Statement The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. 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: “ a data output unit configured to output the drawing data to the spatial light modulator; an illumination optical system configured to irradiate the spatial light modulator with illumination light; a projection optical system configured to project an image of the pattern light generated by the spatial light modulator onto the object; a detection unit configured to detect the image of the pattern light; and a determination unit configured to determine whether the spatial light modulator is capable of generating pattern light in accordance with the drawing data, based on a detection result of the detection unit ” 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. Claim s 1-16 and 20-22 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 . Claim s 1 and 20 recite the limitation “elements driven in accordance with drawing data” is vague and indefinite because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim i.e. the spatial light modulator or elements, so it is unclear whether the function (i.e. driven elements) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the modulator or elements in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information. 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. Claim(s) 1- 2 and 1 0 -18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Asai (JP 2018205018A) . Regarding claim 1 , Asai teaches a n exposure apparatus (Figs. 1 and 2) comprising: a spatial light modulator (14) including a plurality of elements (141) driven in accordance with drawing data (modulation pattern data; ¶ 0027) ; a data output unit (controller 17) configured to output the drawing data to the spatial light modulator (¶ 0027) ; an illumination optical system (182) configured to irradiate the spatial light modulator with illumination light; a first movable body (16) configured to hold an object (161) ; a projection optical system (15) configured to project an image of the pattern light generated by the spatial light modulator onto the object (¶ 0029) ; a detection unit (187) configured to detect the image of the pattern light (¶ 0045) ; and a determination unit (18 8 ) configured to determine whether the spatial light modulator is capable of generating pattern light in accordance with the drawing data, based on a detection result of the detection unit (¶ 00 50 ) . Regarding claim 2 , Asai teaches the exposure apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit (188) is configured to determine whether the spatial light modulator includes a defective element uncapable of being driven in accordance with the drawing data, based on the detection result (whether a defect occurred in a mirror element 141; ¶ 0050) . Regarding claim 10 , Asai teaches the exposure apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit (187 /IM; Fig. 3a ) includes an imaging device ( 187a including imaging elements; ¶ 0045 ) including a plurality of pixels (detection surface 187a) and taking the image of the pattern light projected from the projection optical system (¶ 0047-0048) . Regarding claim 11 , Asai teaches the exposure apparatus according to claim 10, wherein a light receiving surface of the imaging device is provided in substantially a same plane as the object (Fig. 3) . Regarding claim 12 , Asai teaches the exposure apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the detection unit includes a detection optical system (IM in Fig. 3a) above the imaging device (IM is above imaging surface comprising imaging elements 187a; ¶ 0045) , and wherein the detection optical system (IM) forms an enlarged image (magnification; ¶ 0045) obtained by enlarging the image formed on substantially the same plane as the object, on the imaging device (Figs. 1 and 3 show object 161 substantially in the sample plane as imaging device 187a) . Regarding claim 13 , Asai teaches the exposure apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the detection optical system forms the image of the pattern light on the imaging device so that two or more of the elements are included in one pixel of the imaging device, and wherein the determination unit is configured to determine whether pattern light in accordance with the drawing data can be generated based on a detection result of the elements included in the one pixel (the arrangement pitch; ¶ 0045) . Regarding claim 14 , Asai teaches the exposure apparatus according to claim 1 3 , wherein the detection optical system forms the image of the pattern light on the imaging device in a first state in which the pattern light is formed on the imaging device so that the two or more of the elements are included in the one pixel of the imaging device (array pitch of imaging element may be larger than an array pitch ¶ 0045), and wherein the determination unit is configured to determine whether the spatial light modulator includes a defective element uncapable of being driven in accordance with the drawing data, based on a first detection result measured in the first state (¶ 0047-0050), a second state in which a number of the elements included in the one pixel is smaller than that in the first state (a repeated operation where the arrangement pitch may be smaller; ¶ 0045 and 0056) , and determination is based on both a first detection result and a second detection result measured in the second state (¶ 0070). Regarding claim 15 , Asai teaches the exposure apparatus according to claim 1 4 , comprising a module unit (Fig. 1) that includes the spatial light modulator, the illumination optical system, and the projection optical system, wherein, the detection unit performs position measurement of the module unit in addition to detection of the defective element (a moving unit 19 included in the inspection device 18 (i.e. detector better seen in figure 2) that is movable in three dimensions (¶ 0036) thus capable of moving in a direction orthogonal to the scanning exposure direction). Regarding claim 16 , Asai teaches the exposure apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit (187) includes an illuminance sensor configured to measure an illuminance of the image of the pattern light projected from the projection optical system (¶ 0016 and 0045) . Regarding claim 17 , Asai teaches an inspection method for inspecting a spatial light modulator (14) of an exposure apparatus that includes the spatial light modulator (14) including a plurality of elements (141) that generate pattern light in accordance with drawing data (modulation pattern data; ¶ 0027) , an illumination optical system (182) configured to irradiate the spatial light modulator with illumination light, and a projection optical system (15) configured to project an image of the pattern light generated by the spatial light modulator (¶ 0029) onto an object (161) placed on a first movable body (16) , the inspection method comprising: detecting the image of the pattern light projected from the projection optical system (using 187; ¶ 0045) ; and determining whether the spatial light modulator includes a defective element uncapable of being driven in accordance with the drawing data, based on a detection result of the image of the pattern light (using 188; ¶ 0050) . Regarding claim 18 , Asai teaches the inspection method according to claim 17, further comprising: exposing the image onto the object (¶ 0029) ; and determining whether the spatial light modulator includes a defective element uncapable of being driven in accordance with the drawing data by measuring the exposed object by a measurement device (¶ 0050) . 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 (s) 3- 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asai (JP 2018205018A) in view of Hashimoto (JP 2020067387A) . Regarding claim 3 , Asai teaches the exposure apparatus according to claim 2, but fails to further teach that the detection unit (18) is configured to detect an image of a first pattern generated by at least part of the plurality of elements of the spatial light modulator to which a first inspection pattern data is output to and an image of a second pattern generated by the at least part of the plurality of elements of the spatial light modulator to which a second inspection pattern data is output, and wherein the detection result includes a detection result of the image of the first pattern and a detection result of the image of the second pattern. Hashimoto teaches a digital micromirror device (31) comprising a plurality of elements for forming a first pattern and a second pattern, and a detector (1) for detecting the first pattern and the second pattern and outputting a first pattern data and a second pattern data, which are used to determine any defective pixels in a more accurate way (¶ 0005 and 0046 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate in Asai’s system the use the first pattern and the second pattern, so that the detection result may include the image of the first pattern and a detection result of the image of the second pattern , in order to obtain a more accurate determination of any defective pixels, as taught by Hashimoto. Regarding claim 4 , Asai in view of Hashimoto teaches the exposure apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the detection unit is configured to detect an illuminance of the image of the first pattern and an illuminance of the image of the second pattern ( Asai ¶ 0016) . Regarding claim 5 , Asai in view of Hashimoto teaches the exposure apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the first inspection pattern data makes the spatial light modulator, in which each of the plurality of elements is no defective element, generate a first inspection pattern where the at least part of the plurality of elements alternately switches between an ON state and an OFF state (Hashimoto ¶ 00 25 ) , and wherein the second inspection pattern data makes the spatial light modulator, in which each of the plurality of elements is no defective element, generate a second inspection pattern where the ON state and the OFF state of the first inspection pattern is reversed (Hashimoto ¶ 00 27 ) . Regarding claim 6 , Asai in view of Hashimoto teaches the exposure apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the first inspection pattern is a staggered pattern (repeated; Hashimoto ¶ 0025) , and the second inspection pattern is a staggered pattern (repeated; Hashimoto ¶ 0027) . Claim (s) 7- 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asai (JP 2018205018A) in view of Ono (JP 2006227345A) . Regarding claim 7 , Asai teaches the exposure apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to further teach a plurality of modules each including the spatial light modulator, the illumination optical system, and the projection optical system, the plurality of modules being arranged in a direction orthogonal to a scanning exposure direction of the object; wherein the detection unit is arranged in plural in the direction orthogonal to the scanning exposure direction so as to correspond to the plurality of modules. Ono teaches a pixel light beam defect detector comprising a plurality of modules (¶ 0030) each including the spatial light modulator (36) , the illumination optical system ( 40 ) , and the projection optical system (30A-G) , the plurality of modules being arranged in a direction orthogonal to a scanning exposure direction of the object (Fig. 2 shows the projection optical system 30A-G arranged along the x-axis, while the scanning exposure direction is along the y-axis ) ; wherein the detection unit (230) is movable in the direction orthogonal to the scanning exposure direction so as to correspond to the plurality of modules ( 230 moves along x-axis direction, while scanning exposure direction is along the y-axis; ¶ 0045 ; Fig. 2) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate Ono’s plurality of modules each including the spatial light modulator, the illumination optical system, and the projection optical system in the orthogonal configuration, because such duplication is known in the art, as shown in Ono, and because it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate modules for the purpose of increasing output and efficiency in the exposure apparatus. In re Harza , 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. One of ordinary skill would also be motivated to incorporate a plurality of detection units in the direction orthogonal to the scanning exposure direction so as to correspond to the plurality of modules , instead of moving the detection unit (230), so that efficiency may be further increased by saving the time for moving the detection unit. Regarding claim 8 , Asai teaches the exposure apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to further teach that the detection unit (187) translates with the first movable body. Ono teaches a pixel light beam defect detector comprising a movable table (14) having a detection unit (230) disposed and movable on top (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to reconfigure Asai’s detection unit (187) to be on top of the first movable body (16), since such configuration is known in the art, as shown in Ono, and may conserve space in the apparatus. Regarding claim 9 , Asai in view of Ono teaches the exposure apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the detection unit (230) is provided on the first movable body (14; Ono Fig. 3) . Regarding claim 22 , Asai teaches the exposure apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first movable body (16) is configured to move relative to the projection optical system in a scanning exposure direction (¶ 0032) , but fails to further teach that the detection unit is provided on the first movable body and located between a region of the first movable body and an edge of the first movable body in the scanning exposure direction, the region holding the object, and wherein the first movable body (16) is configured to move between a position where the projection optical system projects the image of the pattern light onto the object and a position where the detection unit detects the image of the pattern light. Ono teaches a detection unit (230) is provided on a first movable body (movable table 14) and located between a region of the first movable body and an edge of the first movable body (230 position on edge of 14; Fig. 2) in the scanning exposure direction (along Y; Fig. 2) , the region holding the object, and wherein the first movable body (14) is configured to move between a position where the projection optical system projects the image of the pattern light onto the object (exposed area 12; ¶ 0022) and a position where the detection unit (230) detects the image of the pattern light (a moving unit 19 included in the inspection device 18 (i.e. detector better seen in figure 2) that is movable in three dimensions; ¶ 0036) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to reconfigure Asai’s movable detection unit (187) to be on top of the first movable body (16) that can move between a position where the projection optical system projects the image of the pattern light onto the object and a position where the detection unit detects the image of the pattern light , since such configuration is known in the art, as shown in Ono, and may conserve space in the apparatus. Claim (s) 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asai (JP 2018205018A) in view of Uematsu (US 5,982,476) . Regarding claim 19 , Asai teaches the inspection method according to claim 17, further comprising exposing the image of the patterned light generated by the spatial light modulator onto a detecting surface (187a; ¶ 0045) ; and determining whether the spatial light modulator includes a defective element uncapable of being driven in accordance with the drawing data by measuring the exposed detecting surface by a measurement device (a moving unit 19 included in the inspection device 18 in Asai ¶ 0036 ; defect determination in Asai ¶ 0047-0050 ) . Asai fails to teach that the detecting surface is made of a photochromic material. Uematsu teaches an exposure apparatus comprising a light source, a phase shift mask, and a detector made of a photochromic material, which is a preferred diagnostic material for detection based on the result of photographing (Col. 4 lines 21-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate a photochromic element for Asia’s image of the patterned light generated by the spatial light modulator to be exposed onto , so that a defective element by be detected, because using a photochromic material is preferred in selecting a diagnostic material for detection based on the result of photographing, as taught in Uenatsu . Regarding claim 21 , Asai teaches the exposure apparatus according to claim 20, wherein the first movable body (16) is configured to hold a detecting surface (187a; Asai ¶ 0045) ; wherein the projection optical system is configured to project the image of the pattern light generated by the spatial light modulator onto the detecting surface (¶ 0045) ; and wherein the measurement unit is configured to obtain a measurement result of the projected photochromic element; wherein the measurement unit is configured to determine whether the spatial light modulator includes a defective element uncapable of being driven in accordance with the drawing data, based on the measurement result (a moving unit 19 included in the inspection device 18 in Asai ¶ 0036; defect determination in Asai ¶ 0047-0050) . Asai fails to teach that the detecting surface is made of a photochromic material. Uematsu teaches an exposure apparatus comprising a light source, a phase shift mask, and a detector made of a photochromic material, which is a preferred diagnostic material for detection based on the result of photographing (Col. 4 lines 21-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate a photochromic element on Asia’s first movable body in order to determine whether the spatial light modulator includes a defective element uncapable of being driven , because using a photochromic material is preferred in selecting a diagnostic material for detection based on the result of photographing, as taught in Uenatsu . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT HSIEN C TSAI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7438 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Tuesday (8-5) . 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 Robert Kim can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-2293 . 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. /HSIEN C TSAI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881 /MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881