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 .
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honjo et al. [US 2014/0084184] in view of Gui [US 2006/0114446] and Nakao et al. [US 2014/0284731].
For claims 1 and 4-8, Honjo teaches a drawing apparatus (1, see Fig. 1) that performs a drawing method that draws at least one drawing pattern by irradiating an exposure surface of a substrate (W) with modulated light from a modulator (see Fig. 1), said drawing apparatus comprising:
a substrate holding mechanism (10) that holds said substrate on a horizontal plane;
a light source (41/42);
a modulator (44) that includes a diffraction grating including a plurality of diffractive elements arrayed in an array direction and modulates light from said light source (GLV, see [0062]-[0065]);
a projection optical system (45) including an objective lens disposed between said exposure surface and said modulator;
a rotation mechanism (21) that rotates said substrate in said horizontal plane; and
a controller (80, see [0047]) that controls said rotation mechanism to adjust an orientation of said substrate on said horizontal plane (rotation about the axis A in the Z direction, see [0051]-[0052]) in such a manner that a longitudinal direction of a stepped pattern (pattern drawing with line drawing, see [0045], [0060]-[0064], [0069], [0090]-[0096] and Figs. 5-7) substantially coincides with an orthogonal direction orthogonal to said array direction of said diffraction grating in the plan view (scan direction is orthogonal to array direction, see Figs. 5-7).
Honjo teaches every structural element of the claimed drawing apparatus, but fails to teach the controller functionally performs in response to data associated with the drawing pattern including the claimed features including said at least one drawing pattern including at least one pattern extending in a longitudinal direction in a plan view longitudinal direction of said at least one stepped pattern substantially coincides with an orthogonal direction orthogonal to said array direction of said diffraction grating in the plan view.
Gui teaches a drawing apparatus (se Fig. 1) that performs a drawing method that draws at least one drawing pattern on an exposure surface of a substrate (114), said drawing apparatus comprising: a substrate holding mechanism (106) that holds said substrate on a horizontal plane;
a light source (102);
a modulator (104) that includes a diffraction grating including a plurality of diffractive elements arrayed in an array direction and modulates light from said light source (see [0053]-[0054]);
a projection optical system (108) including an objective lens disposed between said exposure surface and said modulator; and
a controller (2, see Fig. 2) that controls a mechanism to adjust a scan direction of said substrate on said horizontal plane in such a manner that said longitudinal direction of at least one stepped pattern substantially coincides with an orthogonal direction orthogonal to said array direction of said diffraction grating in the plan view (scan direction adjusted to coincide with the longitudinal sections of each of the first pattern and the second pattern, see Figs. 8-13c),
wherein said controller includes an extractor (portion of controller that adjusts pattern data, see [0090]) that extracts, as first pattern data (X direction elements 22, 17, 18a, 18b, see Figs. 12a, 13c and [0116]-[0118]), data representing a stepped pattern having a longitudinal direction within a first allowable angle range with a first substrate orientation of said substrate as a reference (pattern scanned with substrate orientation along X direction), among said at least one stepped pattern, wherein said first allowable angle range is within ±10 degrees (rectilinear pattern features aligned along X direction, see Figs. 8-13c), wherein said extractor extracts, as second pattern data (Y direction elements 23, 16, 18, 19, see Figs. 12b, 13b and [0116]-[0118]), data representing a stepped pattern having a longitudinal direction within a second allowable angle range with a second substrate orientation pattern scanned with substrate orientation along Y direction), different from said first substrate orientation, of said substrate as a reference, among said at least one stepped pattern, wherein said second substrate orientation is orthogonal to said first substrate orientation (X and Y direction along orthogonal directions, see Figs. 8-13c).
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 the scanning of orthogonal patterns in orthogonal orientations as taught by Gui in the control method of the exposure apparatus as taught by Honjo in order improved image feature fidelity (see [0112] of Gui).
Honjo fails to teach the substrate that is claimed as being held by the substrate holding mechanism, wherein the substrate includes the claimed features of an exposure surface being provided with at least one stepped structure including a step upper surface, a step lower surface having a lower height than said step upper surface, and an inclined surface connecting said step upper surface and said step lower surface to each other, said at least one drawing pattern including at least one stepped pattern drawn at least partially on said inclined surface of said stepped structure, and said at least one stepped pattern extending in a longitudinal direction in a plan view.
Nakao teaches an exposure surface (masking layer of wiring layer 200a achieved by photolithography, see [0125]) of a substrate (100A), said exposure surface being provided with at least one stepped structure including a step upper surface (121A-E or 101A-E, see Figs. 5, 26, 31, 36, and 39), a step lower surface (111A or 121A) having a lower height than said step upper surface, and an inclined surface (112A or 122A) connecting said step upper surface and said step lower surface to each other, said at least one drawing pattern including at least one stepped pattern drawn at least partially on said inclined surface of said stepped structure (wiring layer 200A-E has rectilinear connection paths 231A-D, 232A-D, 234A-C, 235A-E, 236A-C), and said at least one stepped pattern extending in a longitudinal direction in a plan view (rectilinear wire pattern in XY plane).
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 semiconductor hollow device for supporting other devices as taught by Nakao as the substrate device manufactured by the apparatus as taught by Honjo because the manufactured semiconductor recess device that is patterned by a lithographic apparatus allows for supporting and integrating a plurality of other semiconductor devices in an protected well-balanced shape that achieves size reduction, higher functionality, and cost reduction (see [0135]-[0146] of Nakao).
For claim 2, Honjo teaches an illumination optical system (43, see Fig. 1) provided between said light source and said diffraction grating, said illumination optical system supplying said light from said light source to said diffraction grating as parallel light in said array direction (uniform intensity distribution of line beam, see [0060]).
For claim 3, Honjo teaches said plurality of diffractive elements is arrayed only in said array direction (a plurality of modulation units 442 arranged one-dimensionally, see [0063]).
For claims 9 and 10, Honjo teaches a degree of parallelism aspect of light emitted toward said exposure surface from said objective lens is higher in a direction orthogonal to said longitudinal direction than in said longitudinal direction (inherent to the function of diffraction grating spatial light modulation described in [0062]-[0065], diffracted light produced by the movable ribbon grating exits at angles along the array axis of the SLM 441 and do not reflect at an angle that are transverse the axis of the SLM 441).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 8, 2025, regarding claims 1 and, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 6 and 7 of the Remarks, regarding both claims 1 and 3, that the combination Honjo and Gui fail to meet the claim limitation because the one dimensional SLM Honjo and the control of a two dimensional SLM as taught by Gui is technically incompatible and the result of impermissible hindsight reasoning.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In the combination of Honjo and Gui, Gui is relied upon to teach control of pattern formation by changing the relative rotation between the substrate and the SLM in order to pattern orthogonal lines. The dimension of the SLM array does not influence this operation. Additionally, in the combination above, the SLM dimensionality is not modified. Further, Applicant has provided no technical reasoning why the “difference in the dimensionality of the SLM arrays” would render the SLM of Honjo unable to accommodate the control as taught by Gui.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nakazawa et al. [US 2012/0081681] teaches the inherent function of a GLV in Figs 6-8.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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