DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to an amendment of 7/21/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/17/2026 and 4/25/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
In the response from applicant on the restriction requirement on 5/21/2026, applicant agrees to withdraw invention of group 2 (claims 16-20) and elect group 1 (claims 1-15). Hence Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/21/2026.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits ( Election without traverse ). Accordingly, new claims 21-25 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
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.
Claims 1-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, cited terms of “generating an initial profile of a new lens based on a surface profile of the damaged lens; optimizing the initial profile of the new lens by simulating an optical property of the new lens in the lithography tool to generate an optimized profile; fabricating the new lens based on the optimized profile” (line 3-7) are vague and renders the claims indefinite. It appears that fabricating the new lens is only based on a surface profile of the damaged lens. It is common knowledge that an optical property of an optical lens not only depends on lens surface profile but also depends on materials used to make the lens. Without specifying materials used to make the lens, it is unclear how to optimize optical property of the lens; and how to make the lens of limitations cited in claim 1.
Claims 2-8 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 1 through their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 9 has same undefined issues as these of claim 1 in line 3-4.
Claims 10-15 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 9 through their dependency from claim 9.
Therefore proper amendments are required in order to clarify the scopes of the claims and overcome the rejections.
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 of this title, 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 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (US 20190384183) in a view of Moizumi et al (US 20090051903).
Regarding Claim 1, Yang teaches a method (abstract; fig. 1), comprising:
removing a damaged lens from a lithography tool;
obtaining a new lens in the lithography tool,
mounting the new lens in the lithography tool in place of the damaged lens;
(abstract, line 1-9, The dynamically controlled lens can be replaced or exchanged…; ¶[0001], line 1-9, Optical lenses in lithography tools are made of fine quality materials and need to be replaced regularly because of contamination acquired during operation; ¶[0033], line 1-13, After performing a certain number of exposures, some optical elements may become contaminated; when the beam region on an optical element becomes contaminated, the optical element needs to be replaced; --- contaminated lens is replaced with a new lens having same optical property as that of contaminated lens).
But Yang does not specifically disclose that wherein generating an initial profile of a new lens based on a surface profile of the damaged lens; optimizing the initial profile of the new lens by simulating an optical property of the new lens in the lithography tool to generate an optimized profile; and fabricating the new lens based on the optimized profile.
However, Moizumi teaches a method for replacing a lens (abstract; figs. 1-4), wherein:
generating an initial profile of a new lens based on a surface profile of the damaged lens (fig. 3, S31, S32, S33);
optimizing the initial profile of the new lens by simulating an optical property of the new lens in the lithography tool to generate an optimized profile (fig. 3, S33 to S34, S34);
fabricating the new lens based on the optimized profile (fig. 3, S35, S36, S37);
(¶[0017], line 1-29, The lens replacing method includes mounting the predetermined lens in a first projection optical system; measuring a wavefront of measuring light passing through the first projection optical system including the predetermined lens to obtain a first measurement result;….. removing the pre-determined lens from the first projection optical system installed in the exposure apparatus; and mounting the processed alternative lens in the first projection optical system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yang by the method for replacing a lens of Moizumi for a purpose to provide a lens replacing method that can minimize a change in optical performance of a projection optical system caused by replacing a lens having refractive power (¶[0016], line 1-4).
Regarding Claim 5, Yang - Moizumi combination teaches that the method of claim 1, wherein optimizing the initial profile of the new lens is performed using finite element analysis to simulate the optical property of the new lens and using an iteration process until a desired lens profile of the new lens is obtained (fig. 3, S31, S32, S33, S34, as disclosed in Moizumi).
Regarding Claim 6, Yang - Moizumi combination teaches that the method of claim 1, wherein the lithography tool comprising:
a light source (fig. 1, 1, as disclosed in Moizumi; fig. 1, 122, as disclosed in Yang);
a zoom-axicon optic system optically coupled to the light source (fig. 1, 4; ¶[0028], line 1-5, The projection optical system 4 is a refractive or catadioptric projection optical system, as disclosed in Moizumi; --may comprising optical zoom system);
a reticle masking imaging optic system coupled to the zoom-axicon optic system (fig. 1, 2, 4, as disclosed in Moizumi; fig. 1, 110, as disclosed in Yang);
a reticle optically coupled to the reticle masking imaging optic system (fig. 1, 2, 4, as disclosed in Moizumi; fig. 1, 110, 106, as disclosed in Yang)and
a projection optic system optically coupled to the reticle (fig. 1, 4, as disclosed in Moizumi; ; fig. 1, 106, as disclosed in Yang), and
wherein the damaged lens is a lens closet to an optical entrance of the zoom-axicon optic system or an optical exit of the zoom-axicon optic system, a lens closest to an optical entrance of the reticle masking imaging optic system or an optical exit of the reticle masking imaging optic system, or a lens closest to an optical entrance of the projection optic system or an optical exit of the projection optic system (fig. 2, 9; ¶[0030], line 1-12, The final lens 9; Since the final lens 9 is in contact with the liquid 5 at a surface (final surface) facing the wafer 6, it is susceptible to fogging; it is periodically necessary to replace the final lens at the user's site where the exposure apparatus is installed, as disclosed in Moizumi).
Claims 9, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (US 20190384183) in a view of Moizumi et al (US 20090051903), further in a view of Zhang et al, “Precision glass molding: Toward an optimal fabrication of optical lenses”; Front. Mech. Eng. 2017, 12(1): 3–17.
Regarding Claim 9, Yang teaches a method (abstract; fig. 1), comprising:
removing a damaged lens from a lithography tool;
obtaining a new lens in the lithography tool,
mounting the new lens in the lithography tool in place of the damaged lens;
(abstract, line 1-9, The dynamically controlled lens can be replaced or exchanged…; ¶[0001], line 1-9, Optical lenses in lithography tools are made of fine quality materials and need to be replaced regularly because of contamination acquired during operation; ¶[0033], line 1-13, After performing a certain number of exposures, some optical elements may become contaminated; when the beam region on an optical element becomes contaminated, the optical element needs to be replaced; --- contaminated lens is replaced with a new lens having same optical property as that of contaminated lens).
But Yang does not specifically disclose that wherein generating a profile of a new lens based on a surface profile of the damaged lens; fabricating the new lens based on the profile.
However, Moizumi teaches a method for replacing a lens (abstract; figs. 1-4), wherein:
generating a profile of a new lens based on a surface profile of the damaged lens (fig. 3, S31, S32, S33, S34);
fabricating the new lens based on the profile (fig. 3, S34, S35, S36, S37);
(¶[0017], line 1-29, The lens replacing method includes mounting the predetermined lens in a first projection optical system; measuring a wavefront of measuring light passing through the first projection optical system including the predetermined lens to obtain a first measurement result;….. removing the pre-determined lens from the first projection optical system installed in the exposure apparatus; and mounting the processed alternative lens in the first projection optical system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yang by the method for replacing a lens of Moizumi for a purpose to provide a lens replacing method that can minimize a change in optical performance of a projection optical system caused by replacing a lens having refractive power (¶[0016], line 1-4).
But Yang - Moizumi combination does not specifically disclose that wherein fabricating the new lens comprises: shaping a workpiece; performing a coarse polish to the workpiece; performing a fine polish to the workpiece, wherein the fine polish is a noncontact-type polishing method; and coating the workpiece.
However, Zhang teaches a method to produce optical glass lenses (abstract; fig. 1);
wherein fabricating the new lens (fig. 1) comprises:
shaping a workpiece (fig. 1, molding, grinding);
performing a coarse polish to the workpiece (fig. 1, lapping);
performing a fine polish to the workpiece (fig. 1, polishing),
wherein the fine polish is a noncontact-type polishing method (fig. 1 polishing, --can be a noncontact-type polishing, see below); and
coating the workpiece (page 7, left col., third paragraph, line 1-9, Ideally, the whole molding system composed of mold, coating and optical glass has the same CTE so that the glass-mold friction can be minimized and the accuracy of the molded optical lens can be maximized).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yang - Moizumi combination by the method of Zhang for a purpose of a method which reduces the time and cost in producing glass optical components (page 14, right col., line 8-12).
Regarding Claim 12, Yang - Moizumi - Zhang combination teaches that the method of claim 9, wherein the coarse polish is a contact-type polishing method (fig. 1, lapping, as disclosed in Zhang).
Regarding Claim 15, Yang - Moizumi - Zhang combination teaches that the method of claim 9, wherein the damaged lens is a lens closest to an optical entrance of an optic system of the lithography tool or an optical exit of the optic system of the lithography tool (fig. 2, 9; ¶[0030], line 1-12, The final lens 9; Since the final lens 9 is in contact with the liquid 5 at a surface (final surface) facing the wafer 6, it is susceptible to fogging; it is periodically necessary to replace the final lens at the user's site where the exposure apparatus is installed, as disclosed in Moizumi).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (US 20190384183) in a view of Moizumi et al (US 20090051903), further in a view of de Groot (US 5526116).
Regarding Claim 2, Yang - Moizumi combination discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that the method of claim 1, wherein the surface profile of the damaged lens is generated using a geometrically-desensitized interferometry method.
However, de Groot in the same field of endeavor teaches an optical system for measuring surface (abstract; figs. 1-2), wherein the surface profile of the damaged lens is generated using a geometrically-desensitized interferometry method (col. 3, line 55-60, provide an apparatus and method for accurately profiling both rough and smooth surfaces using desensitized interference fringes at a useful working distance; col. 9, line 40-45, A method for profiling an object surface using desensitized interference fringes….).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yang - Moizumi combination by the optical system for measuring surface of de Groot for a purpose to provide a method which has the ability to measure rough surfaces, to measure surfaces having large deformations and large slopes, and it is easy to align, and has excellent fringe contras (col. 9, line 28-40)
Claims 7-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (US 20190384183) in a view of Moizumi et al (US 20090051903), and Zhang et al, “Precision glass molding: Toward an optimal fabrication of optical lenses”; Front. Mech. Eng. 2017, 12(1): 3–17; further in a view of Otsuka et al (US 20110281069).
Regarding Claim 7, Yang - Moizumi combination discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that that the method of claim 1, wherein fabricating the new lens based on the optimized profile comprises: shaping a workpiece; performing a coarse polish to the workpiece; performing a fine polish to the workpiece using a focused ion beam method; and coating the workpiece.
However, Zhang teaches a method to produce optical glass lenses (abstract; fig. 1); wherein fabricating the new lens (fig. 1) based on the optimized profile comprises:
shaping a workpiece (fig. 1, molding, grinding);
performing a coarse polish to the workpiece (fig. 1, lapping);
performing a fine polish to the workpiece (fig. 1, polishing); and
coating the workpiece (page 7, left col., third paragraph, line 1-9, Ideally, the whole molding system composed of mold, coating and optical glass has the same CTE so that the glass-mold friction can be minimized and the accuracy of the molded optical lens can be maximized).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yang - Moizumi combination by the method of Zhang for a purpose of a method which reduces the time and cost in producing glass optical components (page 14, right col., line 8-12).
But Yang - Moizumi - Zhang combination does not specifically disclose that wherein performing a fine polish to the workpiece using a focused ion beam method.
However, Otsuka in the same field of endeavor teaches a glass substrate (abstract; fig. 1), wherein performing a fine polish to the workpiece using a focused ion beam method (¶[0021], line 1-9, the invention provides a method for finishing a pre-polished glass substrate surface using any one of processing methods selected from the group consisting of ion beam etching, gas cluster ion beam etching and plasma etching; ¶[0032], line 1-8, it is preferred that the processing method is gas cluster ion beam etching; and it is preferred to use, as a source gas of the gas cluster ion beam etching).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yang – Moizumi – Zhang combination by the glass substrate of Otsuka for a purpose of providing of a method to have a surface which is excellent in flatness is further finished into a surface which is excellent in an RMS slope and an RMS in an HSFR region. (¶[0017], line 1-5).
Regarding Claim 8, Yang – Moizumi – Zhang - Otsuka combination teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising performing a coating simulation to the workpiece to generate a simulation result, and coating the workpiece is performed based on the simulation result (page 7, left col., third paragraph, line 1-9, Ideally, the whole molding system composed of mold, coating and optical glass has the same CTE so that the glass-mold friction can be minimized and the accuracy of the molded optical lens can be maximized, as disclosed in Zhang).
Regarding Claim 10, Yang - Moizumi - Zhang combination discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that the method of claim 9, wherein the fine polish is performed using a focused ion beam method.
However, Otsuka in the same field of endeavor teaches a glass substrate (abstract; fig. 1), wherein the fine polish is performed using a focused ion beam method (¶[0021], line 1-9, the invention provides a method for finishing a pre-polished glass substrate surface using any one of processing methods selected from the group consisting of ion beam etching, gas cluster ion beam etching and plasma etching; ¶[0032], line 1-8, it is preferred that the processing method is gas cluster ion beam etching; and it is preferred to use, as a source gas of the gas cluster ion beam etching).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yang – Moizumi – Zhang combination by the glass substrate of Otsuka for a purpose of providing of a method to have a surface which is excellent in flatness is further finished into a surface which is excellent in an RMS slope and an RMS in an HSFR region. (¶[0017], line 1-5).
Regarding Claim 11, Yang – Moizumi – Zhang - Otsuka combination teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the focused ion beam method comprises a plurality of polish cycles, and an ion beam energy of each polish cycle is lower than an ion beam energy of a previous polish cycle (¶[0036], line 1-5, It is preferred that the second finishing is carried out by gas cluster ion beam etching; ¶[0139], line 1-17, second finishing gas cluster ion beam etching can be used; to remove the waviness generated during the pre-polishing; Specifically, the gas cluster ion beam etching is carried out under milder conditions using a lower ionizing current or a lower accelerating voltage, as disclosed in Otsuka).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (US 20190384183) in a view of Moizumi et al (US 20090051903), and Zhang et al, “Precision glass molding: Toward an optimal fabrication of optical lenses”; Front. Mech. Eng. 2017, 12(1): 3–17; further in a view of de Groot (US 5526116).
Regarding Claim 13, Yang - Moizumi - Zhang combination discloses as set forth above and further teaches the method of claim 9,
wherein generating the profile of the new lens based on the surface profile of the damaged lens comprises:
generating an initial profile of the new lens based on the surface profile of the damaged lens (fig. 3, S31, S32, S33, disclosed in Moizumi); and
optimizing the initial profile of the new lens by simulating an optical property of the new lens in the lithography tool to generate an optimized profile as the profile of the new lens (fig. 3, S33 to S34, S34, disclosed in Moizumi);
(¶[0017], line 1-29, The lens replacing method includes mounting the predetermined lens in a first projection optical system; measuring a wavefront of measuring light passing through the first projection optical system including the predetermined lens to obtain a first measurement result;….. removing the pre-determined lens from the first projection optical system installed in the exposure apparatus; and mounting the processed alternative lens in the first projection optical system, disclosed in Moizumi).
But Yang - Moizumi - Zhang combination does not specifically disclose that wherein using a geometrically-desensitized interferometry method to generate the surface profile of the damaged lens.
However, de Groot in the same field of endeavor teaches an optical system for measuring surface (abstract; figs. 1-2), wherein using a geometrically-desensitized interferometry method to generate the surface profile of the damaged lens (col. 3, line 55-60, provide an apparatus and method for accurately profiling both rough and smooth surfaces using desensitized interference fringes at a useful working distance; col. 9, line 40-45, A method for profiling an object surface using desensitized interference fringes….).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yang - Moizumi - Zhang combination by the optical system for measuring surface of de Groot for a purpose to provide a method which has the ability to measure rough surfaces, to measure surfaces having large deformations and large slopes, and it is easy to align, and has excellent fringe contras (col. 9, line 28-40)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 14 are rejected 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 in case the 112 rejections of the independent claim is overcome by proper amendments.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art taken singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper.
In regard to claims 3-4 and 14, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest a method further comprise wherein the surface profile of the damaged lens is in a form of a matrix, and the method further comprises splitting the matrix into a geometry matrix, a roughness matrix, and a defect matrix, and wherein the geometry matrix records a shape of the damaged lens, the roughness matrix records a surface roughness profile of the damaged lens and the defect matrix records a defect profile of the damaged lens; and wherein the initial profile of the new lens is generated based on the geometry matrix and the roughness matrix, and without using the defect matrix.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Jie Lei whose telephone number is (571) 272 7231. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 8:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by the telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Stephone Allen can be reached on (571) 272 2434.The Fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE LEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights