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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments filed on May 1, 2026 have been fully 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: “moving mechanism” in claims 1, 10 and 13.
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 § 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(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okada (2004/0156028).
Regarding claim 13, Okada discloses an exposure apparatus (Fig. 2, 3), comprising: a light-emission unit (1) that emits exposure light (para 0058); a mask stage (MS) that holds an exposure mask (M1, M2, para 0058); a workpiece stage (WS) that holds a workpiece (W, para 0059); a projection optical system (2) that irradiates the workpiece held by the workpiece stage with the exposure light, the exposure light being emitted from the light-emission unit and passing through the exposure mask (para 0060); a reflective member (4a, 4b) that is disposed in an irradiation region for the exposure light applied from the projection optical system in a step of detecting a mask mark (MAM, Fig. 3, para 0065), the mask mark being an alignment mark of the exposure mask (para 0065); an alignment microscope (3) that is disposed in an optical path of the exposure light applied to the mask mark and captures an image of the mask mark on a basis of reflected light that is reflected by the reflective member in the step of detecting the mask mark (para 0065); and a moving mechanism (inherent) that moves the reflective member from a position deviated from the irradiation region to the irradiation region in the step of detecting the mask mark (Fig. 2, 3, para 0065, 0066), wherein the moving mechanism inserts the reflective member between the workpiece stage and the alignment microscope to move the reflective member to the irradiation region in the step of detecting the mask mark (Fig. 3, para 0065, Fig. 3A shows reflective member 4a on an extension of the workpiece stage, also see Fig. 4. Thus, the reflective member 4a is between the workpiece stage and the alignment microscope).
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Okada (2004/0156028).
Regarding claim 1, Okada discloses an exposure apparatus (Fig. 2, 3), comprising: a light-emission unit (1) that emits exposure light (para 0058); a mask stage (MS) that holds an exposure mask (M1, M2, para 0058); a workpiece stage (WS) that holds a workpiece (W, para 0059); a projection optical system (2) that irradiates the workpiece held by the workpiece stage with the exposure light, the exposure light being emitted from the light-emission unit and passing through the exposure mask (para 0060); a reflective member (4a, 4b) that is disposed in an irradiation region for the exposure light applied from the projection optical system in a step of detecting a mask mark (MAM, Fig. 3, para 0065), the mask mark being an alignment mark of the exposure mask (para 0065); an alignment microscope (3) that is disposed in an optical path of the exposure light applied to the mask mark and captures an image of the mask mark on a basis of reflected light that is reflected by the reflective member in the step of detecting the mask mark (para 0065); and a moving mechanism (inherent) that moves the reflective member from a position deviated from the irradiation region to the irradiation region in the step of detecting the mask mark (Fig. 2, 3, para 0065, 0066), wherein the workpiece stage includes a placement surface on which the workpiece is placed (Fig. 2, para 0059, 0062, 0063), the reflective member is connected to a position different from the placement surface of the workpiece stage (Fig. 2, 3) such that a height position of a surface of the reflective member is substantially equal to a height position of a surface of the workpiece placed on the placement surface (Fig. 2A, 2B, show that the reflective members 4a, 4b are substantially equal to a height position of a surface of the workpiece W, Fig. 3A, 3B show that when the wafer W is not on the placement surface of the workpiece stage, the surface of the reflecting members 4a, 4b are at a higher position than the surface of the placement surface) and the moving mechanism moves the workpiece stage to move the reflective member to the irradiation region (Fig. 2, 3, para 0062-0065).
Alternatively, although Okada does not explicitly state that the height position of the surface of the reflective member is substantially equal to the height position of the surface of the workpiece placed on the placement surface, since Okada discloses that when the exposure stage WS is located at the exposure position, a work piece/alignment mark and positioning of the mask and the workpiece is carried out based on the stored mask mark position (para 0059). Since the positioning of the mask and the workpiece is carried out based on the stored mask mark position, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to obtain the mask mark position when the reflecting surface is at the same height position as the workpiece for more accurate focusing and positioning.
Regarding claim 2, Okada discloses wherein the moving mechanism (inherent) moves the workpiece stage such that the placement surface is deviated from the irradiation region and moves the reflective member to the irradiation region in the step of detecting the mask mark (Fig. 3, para 0065).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada in view of Tanaka (JP 8-233529 in IDS) (para numbers refer to the provided English translation).
Regarding claim 4, Okada does not disclose wherein the reflective member is formed to have a size equal to or larger than a size of the irradiation region, and reflects a whole of the exposure light applied from the projection optical system.
Tanaka discloses an exposure apparatus (Fig. 1, para 0007, 0009, 0036-0038), comprising: a light-emission unit (1) that emits exposure light; a mask stage (2) that holds an exposure mask (M, para 0042 (1)); a workpiece stage (4) that holds a workpiece (W, para 0042 (6)); a projection optical system (3) that irradiates the workpiece held by the workpiece stage with the exposure light, the exposure light being emitted from the light-emission unit and passing through the exposure mask (para 0042 (1); a reflective member (4a) that is disposed in an irradiation region for the exposure light applied from the projection optical system in a step of detecting a mask mark (MAM, para 0041), the mask mark being an alignment mark of the exposure mask (Fig. 1, para 0042 (1), (2)); an alignment microscope (5) that is disposed in an optical path of the exposure light applied to the mask mark and captures an image of the mask mark on a basis of reflected light that is reflected by the reflective member in the step of detecting the mask mark (para 0042 (3)(4)), wherein the reflective member (4a) is formed to have a size equal to or larger than a size of the irradiation region, and reflects a whole of the exposure light applied from the projection optical system (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a reflective member formed to have a size equal to or larger than a size of the irradiation region, and reflects a whole of the exposure light applied from the projection optical system as taught by Tanaka to the invention of Okada in order to detect all of the mask marks on the mask at once using a plurality of alignment microscope since merely changing a side of a provide element requires only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada in view of Sugimoto (2008/0212047).
Regarding claim 10, Okada discloses an exposure apparatus (Fig. 2, 3), comprising: a light-emission unit (1) that emits exposure light (para 0058); a mask stage (MS) that holds an exposure mask (M1, M2, para 0058); a workpiece stage (WS) that holds a workpiece (W, para 0059); a projection optical system (2) that irradiates the workpiece held by the workpiece stage with the exposure light, the exposure light being emitted from the light-emission unit and passing through the exposure mask (para 0060); a reflective member (4a, 4b) that is disposed in an irradiation region for the exposure light applied from the projection optical system in a step of detecting a mask mark (MAM, Fig. 3, para 0065), the mask mark being an alignment mark of the exposure mask (para 0065); an alignment microscope (3) that is disposed in an optical path of the exposure light applied to the mask mark and captures an image of the mask mark on a basis of reflected light that is reflected by the reflective member in the step of detecting the mask mark (para 0065); a moving mechanism (inherent) that moves the reflective member from a position deviated from the irradiation region to the irradiation region in the step of detecting the mask mark (Fig. 2, 3, para 0065, 0066), wherein the workpiece stage includes a placement surface on which the workpiece is placed (Fig. 2, para 0059, 0062, 0063), and the reflective member is held by the moving stage such that a height position of a surface of the reflective member is substantially equal to a height position of a surface of the workpiece placed on the placement surface (Fig. 2A, 2B, show that the reflective members 4a, 4b are substantially equal to a height position of a surface of the workpiece W, Fig. 3A, 3B show that when the wafer W is not on the placement surface of the workpiece stage, the surface of the reflecting members 4a, 4b are at a higher position than the surface of the placement surface), wherein the moving mechanism moves he workpiece stage to move the reflective member to the irradiation region (Fig. 2, 3, para 0062-0065).
Alternatively, although Okada does not explicitly state that the height position of the surface of the reflective member is substantially equal to the height position of the surface of the workpiece placed on the placement surface, since Okada discloses that when the exposure stage WS is located at the exposure position, a work piece/alignment mark and positioning of the mask and the workpiece is carried out based on the stored mask mark position (para 0059). Since the positioning of the mask and the workpiece is carried out based on the stored mask mark position, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to obtain the mask mark position when the reflecting surface is at the same height position as the workpiece for more accurate focusing and positioning.
However, Okada does not disclose a moving stage that holds the reflective member, wherein the moving mechanism also moves the moving stage, as well as the workpiece stage, along an identical plane to move the reflective member to the irradiation region. Sugimoto disclose an exposure apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising a workpiece stage (2, para 0048) and a moving stage (3) for holding fiducial member for alignment (para 0050-0052). Sugimoto discloses the fiducial member for alignment on the moving stage (3, para 0050-0052) and the moving mechanism that moves each of the workpiece stage and the moving stage along an identical plane (Fig. 1, 2, para 0072-0074). Although Sugimoto does not disclose a reflective member on a moving stage (3), but discloses a fiducial member (14), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the reflecting member, instead of the fiducial member, on a moving stage separate from the workpiece stage since fiducial member is also used for aligning the mask and the workpiece and since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art and providing separate moving stage provides flexibility in the movement of the workpiece stage and the moving stage with independent control of the stages.
Regarding claim 11, Okada discloses wherein the moving mechanism (inherent) moves the workpiece stage (WS) such that the placement surface is deviated from the irradiation region and moves the reflective member to the irradiation region in the step of detecting the mask mark. (Fig. 2, 3, para 0065, 0066).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada in view of Sugimoto as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Tanaka (JP 8-233529 in IDS) (para numbers refer to the provided English translation).
Regarding claim 12, the further difference between the claimed invention and the modified Okada is wherein the reflective member is formed to have a size equal to or larger than a size of the irradiation region, and reflects a whole of the exposure light applied from the projection optical system.
Tanaka discloses an exposure apparatus (Fig. 1, para 0007, 0009, 0036-0038), comprising: a light-emission unit (1) that emits exposure light; a mask stage (2) that holds an exposure mask (M, para 0042 (1)); a workpiece stage (4) that holds a workpiece (W, para 0042 (6)); a projection optical system (3) that irradiates the workpiece held by the workpiece stage with the exposure light, the exposure light being emitted from the light-emission unit and passing through the exposure mask (para 0042 (1); a reflective member (4a) that is disposed in an irradiation region for the exposure light applied from the projection optical system in a step of detecting a mask mark (MAM, para 0041), the mask mark being an alignment mark of the exposure mask (Fig. 1, para 0042 (1), (2)); an alignment microscope (5) that is disposed in an optical path of the exposure light applied to the mask mark and captures an image of the mask mark on a basis of reflected light that is reflected by the reflective member in the step of detecting the mask mark (para 0042 (3)(4)), wherein the reflective member (4a) is formed to have a size equal to or larger than a size of the irradiation region, and reflects a whole of the exposure light applied from the projection optical system (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a reflective member formed to have a size equal to or larger than a size of the irradiation region, and reflects a whole of the exposure light applied from the projection optical system as taught by Tanaka to further modify Okada in order to detect all of the mask marks on the mask at once using a plurality of alignment microscope since merely changing a side of a provide element requires only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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.
Okada does not disclose wherein the reflective member is formed to have a size that covers a whole of the workpiece and blocks the exposure light applied to the workpiece in the step of detecting the mask mark. Okada discloses the reflective member next to the workpiece, and it does not block the exposure light applied to the workpiece.
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 PETER B KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Toan Ton can be reached at (571) 272-2303. 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.
/PETER B KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 June 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights