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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species D and Species 3, indicating claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-12, and 15-17 in the reply filed on October 24, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 2, 6, 10, 13, and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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:
The “determination unit” in claims 1-4. Generally, the data generation device 300 and control system 600 of Fig. 11 provides support for this element.
The “reception unit” in claims 7 and 16. Generally, the user interface of [0113] provides support for this element.
The “change unit” of claim 9. Generally, the data generation device 300 and control system 600 of Fig. 11 provides support for this element.
The “control unit” of claim 9. Generally, the data generation device 300 and control system 600 of Fig. 11 provides support for this element.
The “generation unit” in claim 12. Generally, the data generation device 300 and control system 600 of Fig. 11 provides support for this element.
The “substrate exchange unit” of claim 17. Paragraphs [0022]-[0025] provide support for this element.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 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. Claim 8 recites a response function performed by no structural element. It is unclear what performs this function. For the purposes of examining, the response is understood to be performed by the change unit similar to the change unit as recited in claim 9.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Rossing et al. [US 2003/0211297].
For claim 1, Rossing teaches an exposure apparatus (see Fig. 2) comprising:
an exposure module that includes a spatial light modulator (programmable mirror array, see [0027]) and projects pattern light generated by the spatial light modulator onto a substrate (Wx);
a determination unit (computer controller system, see [0043]) configured to, in response to that a plurality of substrates scheduled to be arranged on a substrate holder include a first substrate having a defect (defective substrate, see [0045]), determine a plurality of substrates to be arranged on the substrate holder from the plurality of substrates scheduled to be arranged on the substrate holder, based on a predetermined handling method for the first substrate (problems may be solved by different methods using administration system, see [0045]).
For claim 3, Rossing teaches the determination unit is configured to determine a substrate other than the first substrate among the plurality of substrates scheduled to be arranged on the substrate holder as the plurality of substrates to be arranged on the substrate holder (the defective substrate may be taken out and replaced by a dummy substrate, see [0045]).
For claim 4, Rossing teaches the determination unit is configured to determine a substrate other than the first substrate among the plurality of substrates scheduled to be arranged on the substrate holder and a second substrate other than the plurality of substrates scheduled to be arranged on the substrate holder as the plurality of substrates to be arranged on the substrate holder (the defective substrate may be taken out and replaced by a dummy substrate, see [0045]).
For claim 5, Rossing teaches the second substrate is arranged at a position where the first substrate is scheduled to be arranged on the substrate holder (the defective substrate may be taken out and replaced by a dummy substrate, see [0045]).
For claim 7, Rossing teaches a reception unit configured to receive selection of a handling method for the first substrate (user identifies in advance via the computer system, see [0043]).
For claim 15, Rossing teaches arrange the substrate other than the first substrate having the defect on the substrate holder (the defective substrate may be taken out and replaced by a dummy substrate, see [0045]).
For claim 16, Rossing teaches the reception unit is configured to select whether or not to continue exposure processing in response to that the plurality of substrates scheduled to be arranged on the substrate holder include the first substrate having the defect (user identifies in advance via the computer system, see [0043], the user interaction with the system allows for this functional action).
For claim 17, Rossing teaches a substrate exchange unit configured to, in response to that the plurality of substrates scheduled to be arranged on a substrate holder include the first substrate having the defect, arrange the plurality of substrates on the substrate holder based on the predetermined handling method (a handling arm or arms of the lithographic apparatus 1' can be programmed to select the appropriate substrate from a storage location in any order necessary to maintain a relationship between the holders and the substrates, see [0043]).
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 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lous [US 2008/0304030] in view of Lin et al. [US 2015/0077731].
For claim 11, Lous teaches an exposure apparatus (see Fig. 3) comprising:
a first exposure module (ME1) that includes a first spatial light modulator (ME1) and projects pattern (patterned LB1) light generated by the first spatial light modulator onto a substrate (W); and
a control device (CU) configured to generate drawing data for causing the first spatial light modulator to generate pattern (see [0057]) to be exposed on a substrate actually arranged on a substrate holder (inherent to support the substrate W),
wherein the control device is configured to, in response to that the first spatial light modulator includes a defective element that cannot be driven in accordance with the drawing data (defective pixels DP1 of modulator ME1, see [0058]-[0060]), change the drawing data so that the first spatial light modulator including the defective element does not generate pattern light (CU prevents control of DP1, see [0064]), or control the first exposure module so that the pattern light generated by the first spatial light modulator is not projected (further configuration where the first modulator element ME1 is arranged to not receive the first light beam LB1, see [0071]).
Lous fails to teach respective patterns to be exposed on a plurality of substrates actually arranged on a substrate holder.
Lin teaches the first spatial light modulator to generate respective patterns to be exposed on a plurality of substrates actually arranged on a substrate holder (pattern generation on PG 106 for each of the column assemblies for the plurality of wafer 402 on stage 504, see [0017]-[0021], [0051], and Figs. 1A, 5A, and 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 plurality of substrates actually arranged on a substrate holder as taught by Lin the exposure apparatus as taught by Lous in order increase the throughput of the apparatus by exposing a plurality of substrate simultaneously.
For claim 12, Lous teaches second exposure module (ME2, see Fig. 3) including a second spatial light modulator (ME2), a generation unit (CU) configured to, in response to that the first spatial light modulator includes the defective element, change the drawing data into a changed drawing data so that the second exposure module different from the first exposure module generates pattern light that is scheduled to be generated by the first exposure module (the second modulator element ME2 such that this corresponding pixel contributes a portion of the second light beam LB2 instead of the portion of the first light beam LB1, see [0064]), the pattern light generated by the second exposure module is projected onto a first substrate onto which the pattern light is scheduled to be projected by the first exposure module (see [0064] and [0071]).
Lous fails to teach a control unit configured to control a position of the substrate holder.
Lin teaches a control unit (120, see Fig. 1A) configured to control a position of the substrate holder (114).
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 od the substrate position as taught by Lin the projection of second exposure module as taught by Lous in order to provide for positioning of the substrate relative the projection system and perform a step and scan operation in order to project multiple dies on the substrate.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossing in view of Lous.
For claims 8 and 9, Rossing teaches a control unit configured to control a position of the substrate holder (controller for holders WT1 and WT2, see [0041]).
Rossing fails to teach in response to that the spatial light modulator includes a defective element that cannot be driven in accordance with drawing data, the drawing data is changed so that the spatial light modulator including the defective element does not generate pattern light, or the exposure module is controlled so that pattern light generated by the spatial light modulator including the defective element is not projected, wherein the exposure module is provided in a plurality, and the plural exposure modules include a first exposure module and a second exposure module different from the first exposure module, and wherein the exposure apparatus further comprises: a change unit configured to, in response to that the spatial light modulator of the first exposure module includes a defective element that cannot be driven in accordance with drawing data, change the drawing data so that the second exposure module generates pattern light that is scheduled to be generated by the first exposure module; and that the pattern light generated by the second exposure module is projected onto a substrate onto which the pattern light is scheduled to be projected by the first exposure module.
Lous teaches a control device (CU, see Fig. 3) is configured to, in response to that the first spatial light modulator includes a defective element that cannot be driven in accordance with the drawing data (defective pixels DP1 of modulator ME1, see [0058]-[0060]), the drawing data is changed so that the first spatial light modulator including the defective element does not generate pattern light (CU prevents control of DP1, see [0064]), or control the first exposure module so that the pattern light generated by the first spatial light modulator is not projected (further configuration where the first modulator element ME1 is arranged to not receive the first light beam LB1, see [0071]), wherein the exposure module is provided in a plurality, and the plural exposure modules include a first exposure module (ME1) and a second exposure module (ME2) different from the first exposure module, including a second spatial light modulator (ME2), and wherein the exposure apparatus further comprises: a change unit (CU) configured to, in response to that the spatial light modulator of the first exposure module includes a defective element that cannot be driven in accordance with drawing data, change the drawing data so that the second exposure module generates pattern light that is scheduled to be generated by the first exposure module (the second modulator element ME2 such that this corresponding pixel contributes a portion of the second light beam LB2 instead of the portion of the first light beam LB1, see [0064]); and that the pattern light generated by the second exposure module is projected onto a substrate onto which the pattern light is scheduled to be projected by the first exposure module (see [0064] and [0071]).
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 plurality of exposure modules with control as taught by Lous in the exposure apparatus as taught by Rossing in order to perform exposure by correcting for malfunctioning patterning devices and maintaining throughput.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kruijswijk et al. [US 2005/0206868] teaches in Figs. 5-9 rearrangement of a group of wafers based on identified faulty wafers.
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