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
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 1-11 and 13, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leidig et al (U.S.Pat. 6,988,811) in view of Tanaka (U.S.Pat. 8,300,213).
With respect to claims 1, 4-5 and 7-9, 13, 15-16, and 21-22, Leidig discloses an exposure method and a corresponding exposure apparatus (60) for processing a multilayer liquid crystal film (16; 18) having a compound with a photo-aligned group (col. 2-3 and col.5-6 and figure 1) and comprising: an exposure step of relatively moving the film and an optical member in an optical axis direction of the optical member while rotating a polarization direction of a linearly polarized light (see col.11, lines 39-62). Leidig does not expressly disclose the linearly polarized light is focused on a ring shape with the optical member to expose the film, as recited in the claims. However, this feature is well known in the art. For example, Tanaka discloses an exposure apparatus having a light source unit (1) that emits linearly polarized light; a rotating unit (20; 21; 23) that rotates a polarization direction of the linearly polarized light emitted from the light source unit; an optical member/axicon unit (5; 10) that focuses the linearly polarized light transmitted through the rotating unit in a ring shape/annular illumination (see figures 2A-2C; 4) ; a stage that support a film/photoresist, the stage being disposed to be spaced from the optical member in an optical axis direction of the optical member and a moving unit/stage unit that changes a distance in the optical axis direction of the optical member between the optical member and the stage. In view of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tanaka and Leidig to obtain the claimed invention as recited in the claims. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to employ an axicon lens/mirror as taught by Tanaka into the exposure apparatus of Leidig to focus the linearly polarized light in a ring shape for generating a desired intensity and thereby improving the quality of the exposure apparatus.
As to claims 2-3 and 14, it is noted that Tanaka discloses adjusting exposure conditions by controlling the configuration of illumination optics along the optical axis and continuously changing relative movement speed constitute routine optimization of exposure parameters (see col.14, lines 5-21).
As to claims 6 and 10-11, Leidig discloses the linearly polarized light has ultraviolet light/laser light source (see col.2, lines 34-35).
As to claim 8, Tanaka discloses illumination optics providing collimated light incident on the axicon (see figure 1).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leidig et al (U.S.Pat. 6,988,811) in view of Tanaka (U.S.Pat. 8,300,213) in view of Schuster (U.S.Pat. 6,885,502).
With respect to claim 12, Leidig as modified by Tanaka, discloses an exposure apparatus and a corresponding method comprising substantially all of the limitations of the instant claims except for a shutter as recited in the instant claims. Schuster discloses an exposure apparatus having a shutter (53) provided between a light source (51) and a stage (60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the shutter as taught by Schuster into the apparatus/method of Leidig as modified by Tanaka for the purpose of blocking the undesired illumination light and thereby improving the thorough put of the exposure apparatus/method.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed April 27, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 7 have been amended. Claims 19-20 have been cancelled and new claims 21-22 have been added. Applicant’s arguments in conjunction with the amendment have been carefully reviewed but they are not found persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Applicant contends that Leidig et al fails to disclose “linearly polarized light focused on a ring shape with an optical member to expose the film” and further asserts that Tanaka does not cure this deficiency Tanaka allegedly discloses illumination corresponding to a mask pattern than ring-shaped light itself.
The Examiner agrees that Leidig does not expressly disclose ring-shaped illumination. However, the rejection does not rely upon Leidig for teaching the claimed ring-shaped light. Rather, Tanaka is relied upon for teaching the illumination configuration while Leidig is relied upon for exposing a photo-alignment film containing a photo-aligned group using linearly polarized light.
Applicant’s arguments that Tanaka fails to disclose ring-shaped light is not persuasive since Tanaka expressly teaches the use of annular illumination regions generated by annular illumination diffractive optical elements. In particular, Tanaka explains that annular illumination diffractive elements may be employed to form annular illumination regions. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood such annular illumination regions to constitute ring-shaped illumination light. Therefore, Tanaka teaches the use of ring-shaped illumination independent of any particular mask pattern.
Applicant further argues that the annular illumination discussed in Tanaka merely reflects a pattern of the mask and does not constitute ring-shaped light itself. This interpretation is not consistent with the disclosure of Tanaka. Tanaka describes the illumination optical system that generates predetermined illumination fields before the illumination reaches the mask. The annular illumination regions are produced by diffraction optical elements within the illumination optical system and are not created by the mask pattern itself. Accordingly, the annular illumination disclosed by Tanaka represents a characteristics of the illumination beam and not merely a characteristics of the transferred mask pattern.
The Examiner therefore maintains that Tanaka teaches ring-shaped illumination light as recited in claim 1. Applicant also appears to distinguish between “ring-shaped light” and “annular illumination regions”. However, no meaningful structural or functional distinction has been identified. The terms “annular” and “ring-shaped” would have been understood by a skilled artisan in the art as describing substantially the same illumination geometry. As such, Tanaka’s annular illumination reasonably reads on the claimed ring-shaped light.
The Examiner additionally notes that the amendment to claim 1 merely clarifies that the film is exposed using ring-shaped light of the linearly polarized light. The combination of Leidig and Tanaka already suggests exposing a photo-alignment film using polarized illumination while employing the annular/ring-shaped illumination configuration taught by Tanaka. Therefore, the amendment does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention form the applied references.
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103. Claims 2-17 fall with claim 1 because Applicant has not presented separate arguments establishing patentability of these claims.
With respect to newly added claims 21-22, Applicant recites that the film is concentrically irradiated with the ring-shaped light and is exposed with concentric exposure pattern.
To the extent Applicant contends that concentric exposure patterns distinguish over the applied references, such argument is not persuasive. During operation of Tanaka’s annular illumination system, relative movement between the substrate and the optical system while employing annular illumination would have predictably produced concentric irradiation patterns on the exposed surface. Formation of concentric exposure patterns represents no more than the expected result of using ring-shaped illumination while performing the disclosed relative motion. Therefore, the additional limitation does not impart patentable weight sufficient to overcome the rejection.
Accordingly, claims 21-22 remain unpatentable for substantially the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1.
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 HUNG HENRY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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 Minh 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.
HUNG HENRY NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2882
Hvn
6/7/26
/HUNG V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights