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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Amendments correct the objections indicated from the prior Office Action which are now withdrawn.
Applicant argues that Karlewski cannot be combined with Vlugter. Karlewski teaches of changing local coefficient of thermal expansion [0009, 11-12], wherein Karlewski further elaborates that the change in coefficient of thermal expansion is due to the breaking or rearrangement of bonds [0012, 64]. Applicant argues that because Vlugter does not teach material compaction, the pulsed laser irradiation of Vlugter is non-compatible with the Karlewski method. This reasoning is not persuasive to invalidate the combination of references. The Examiner concedes that Vlugter does not nominally material compaction; however, the two references relate to each other and are compatible as references that teach laser irradiation to locally modify coefficient of thermal expansion. Vlugter teaches of densification/densified zone that has lower CTE compared to unmodified region (p. 6 ¶ “In this paper…”) as well as pulsed irradiation yields structural changes such as changing refractive index due to local densification (p. 1 ¶ “The method consists of…”). The densification taught by Vlugter is equivalent to the argued material compaction taught by Karlewski. Vlugter further teaches that the densification is caused by pulsed laser irradiation. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Pointing out the differences between the claimed invention and each individual reference is not sufficient to overcome a rejection based on a combination of the references. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 231 USPQ375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1/18/26 recites “an ultra-low expansion glass body”. “ultra-low expansion” is a relative term wherein the instant specification [0078] defines the range as between -30 and +30 ppb/K.
Claim 10 recites “relative movement between the focus point and the glass body”. This is given broadest reasonable interpretation wherein claim 11 and 12 clarify the intended interpretation. As such, claim 10 is interpreted with claims 11 and 12.
Claim 27 recites “the annealing reducing an average CTE of the glass body”. While nominally stated, the Examiner notes that there is limited support in the instant specification connecting this limitation to the method steps of the parent claim.
Nominal claim limitation values are preceded by the word “about”. Though “about” is an indefinite term, the instant specification [0069-70] define the term and the Applicant reserves the necessary/not necessary exactness of the value as well as the relationship of said value to other values and their endpoints.
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) 1-5, 9, 13-16, 18-19, 21-27, and 29-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karlewski et al (DE-102020201677A1, English translation provided by Espacenet) and further in view of Annamalai et al (US-20190248696-A1) and Vlugter et al (2019, “Local tuning of fused silica thermal expansion coefficient using femtosecond laser”; Applicant provided in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Karlewski teaches of a method of modifying a coefficient of thermal expansion [0009] of an ultra-low expansion glass [0034], determining a spatial CTE distribution of a glass body [0066] comprising SiO2 and TiO2 [0059], the glass body comprising at least a first region and a second region of a first CTE and a second CTE respectively [0016, 61]; and directing an irradiation to at least one of the first region or the second region to modify at least one of the first CTE of the first region or the second CTE of the second region [0014-16], wherein the point by point spatial measurement of thermal expansion coefficient 216 (Fig. 4) discretely reads on the first region or second region.
Karlewski teaches the glass body comprises SiO2 and TiO2 [0059]. Karlewski does not teach of the nominal ranges of the compositional components. In related EUV lithography system art ([0005] of Karlewski, [0003] of Annamalai), Annamalai teaches of silica-titania glasses having 7-13 wt% TiO2 and 79-92.9 wt% SiO2 [0006]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a low thermal expansion titania-silica glass of Annamalai in the same field of endeavor [0003-5]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness; see MPEP 2144.05.
Karlewski teaches of directing an irradiation to modify the CTE [0014-16]. Karlewski does not expressly teach the irradiation is a pulsed laser beam. In the same field of endeavor, Vlugter teaches that the CTE of fused silica is modified by pulsed laser irradiation (p. 6 ¶ “In this paper, it…”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method of Karlewski to use a pulsed laser beam as a known alternative form of irradiation to accomplish the CTE modification in the art.
Regarding claim 18, Karlewski teaches of a method of modifying a coefficient of thermal expansion [0009] of an ultra-low expansion glass [0034], determining a spatial CTE distribution of a glass body [0066] comprising SiO2 and TiO2 [0059], the glass body comprising at least a first region and a second region of a first CTE and a second CTE respectively [0016, 61]; and directing an irradiation to at least one of the first region or the second region to modify at least one of the first CTE of the first region or the second CTE of the second region [0014-16], wherein the point by point spatial measurement of thermal expansion coefficient 216 (Fig. 4) discretely reads on the first region or second region.
Karlewski teaches the glass body comprises SiO2 and TiO2 [0059]. Karlewski does not teach of the nominal ranges of the compositional components. In related EUV lithography system art ([0005] of Karlewski, [0003] of Annamalai), Annamalai teaches of silica-titania glasses having 7-13 wt% TiO2 and 79-92.9 wt% SiO2 [0006]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a low thermal expansion titania-silica glass of Annamalai in the same field of endeavor [0003-5]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness; see MPEP 2144.05.
Karlewski teaches of directing an irradiation to modify the CTE [0014-16]. Karlewski does not expressly teach the irradiation is a pulsed laser beam. In the same field of endeavor, Vlugter teaches that the CTE of fused silica is modified by pulsed laser irradiation (p. 6 ¶ “In this paper, it…”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method of Karlewski to use a pulsed laser beam as a known form of irradiation to accomplish the CTE modification.
Modified Karlewski relies on the silica-titania glass taught by Annamalai wherein Annamalai teaches of annealing the glass body [0014] for the purpose of improved homogenization of the spatial CTE [0092]. Karlewski is motivated to homogenize the glass body so that the CTE across the glass body is sufficiently homogenized [0024]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to anneal the glass body after the directing the pulsed laser beam of modified Karlewski to further homogenize the CTE of the glass body. Furthermore, the transposition of process steps, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Regarding claim 26, Karlewski teaches of a method of modifying a coefficient of thermal expansion [0009] of an ultra-low expansion glass [0034], determining a spatial CTE distribution of a glass body [0066] comprising SiO2 and TiO2 [0059], the glass body comprising at least a first region and a second region of a first CTE and a second CTE respectively [0016, 61]; and directing an irradiation to at least one of the first region or the second region to modify at least one of the first CTE of the first region or the second CTE of the second region [0014-16], wherein the point by point spatial measurement of thermal expansion coefficient 216 (Fig. 4) discretely reads on the first region or second region. Karlewski illustrates peaks and valleys of the CTE (Fig. 4, local CTE 216) prior to directing the laser beam/irradiation (Fig. 5, 220 irradiation device) to homogenize the spatial CTE (Fig. 6, local CTE 216) wherein each discretized point is interpreted as a separate region and the valleys which could be either the first or second region/CTE is increased after the irradiation [0015].
Karlewski teaches the glass body comprises SiO2 and TiO2 [0059]. Karlewski does not teach of the nominal ranges of the compositional components. In related EUV lithography system art ([0005] of Karlewski, [0003] of Annamalai), Annamalai teaches of silica-titania glasses having 7-13 wt% TiO2 and 79-92.9 wt% SiO2 [0006]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a low thermal expansion titania-silica glass of Annamalai in the same field of endeavor [0003-5]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness; see MPEP 2144.05.
Karlewski teaches of directing an irradiation to modify the CTE [0014-16]. Karlewski does not expressly teach the irradiation is a pulsed laser beam. In the same field of endeavor, Vlugter teaches that the CTE of fused silica is modified by pulsed laser irradiation (p. 6 ¶ “In this paper, it…”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method of Karlewski to use a pulsed laser beam as a known form of irradiation to accomplish the CTE modification.
Regarding claim 2-4/25, depending from claim 1/18, Karlewski illustrates peaks and valleys of the CTE (Fig. 4, local CTE 216) prior to directing the laser beam/irradiation (Fig. 5, 220 irradiation device) to homogenize the spatial CTE (Fig. 6, local CTE 216) wherein each discretized point is interpreted as a separate region and the valleys which could be either the first or second region/CTE is increased after the irradiation [0015].
Regarding claim 5, depending from claim 1, modified Karlewski relies on the silica-titania glass taught by Annamalai wherein Annamalai teaches of forming the glass body and annealing the glass body [0014, 115, 121] for the purpose of improved homogenization of the spatial CTE [0092].
Regarding claim 9, depending from claim 1, modified Karlewski relies on the silica-titania glass taught by Annamalai wherein Annamalai teaches of 0.1 wt% OH content [0175] which is about 1000 ppm. Vlugter teaches of experimenting on glasses with 100-1000 ppm OH content (p. 3 ¶ “Eight cantilevers were…”. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have experiment and use glasses with OH content that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13/21/29, depending from claim 1/8/26, modified Karlewski relies on the pulsed laser beam of Vlugter wherein Vlugter teaches of using a pulse repetition rate of 800 kHz (p. 4 ¶ “The modification were written…”), which falls within the instant claimed range. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness; see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14/22/30, depending from claim 1/18/30, modified Karlewski relies on the pulsed laser beam of Vlugter wherein Vlugter teaches of using energies of 20-200 J/mm2 (p. 5 left column) wherein pulse energy, repetition rate, pulse duration, laser thickness, and laser affected volume are all parameters stated as cause/result effective variables when considering the working principle/model for CTE calculation (p. 2-3, 5-6). Though Vlugter does not expressly report an energy density and all of the nominal values of the cause/result effective variables, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that energy density of the pulsed laser beam to be calculated from the combination of pulse energy, repetition rate, pulse duration, laser thickness, and laser affected volume. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) and In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to optimize and experiment the energy density of the pulsed laser beam by modifying the result/cause effect variables determined by Vlugter to be compatible for the silica-titania glass desired to be used by modified Karlewski.
Regarding claim 15-16/23-24/31-32, depending from claim 1/18/26, modified Karlewski relies on the pulsed laser beam of Vlugter wherein Vlugter teaches of using a wavelength of 850 nm and 1030 nm (p. 3 ¶ “Eight cantilevers were…”. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness; see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, depending from claim 18, Karlewski teaches the irradiance traverses a surface of the glass body in the x direction (Fig. 5), reading on relative movement. Vlugter similarly teaches the x-axis movement of the laser beam (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 27, depending from claim 26, modified Karlewski relies on the silica-titania glass taught by Annamalai wherein Annamalai teaches of annealing the glass body [0014] for the purpose of improved homogenization of the spatial CTE [0092]. Karlewski is motivated to homogenize the glass body so that the CTE across the glass body is sufficiently homogenized [0024]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to anneal the glass body after the directing the pulsed laser beam of modified Karlewski to further homogenize the CTE of the glass body. Furthermore, the transposition of process steps, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Karlewski teaches of a resulting average CTE of the glass body (Fig. 6) and the capability to increase the CTE [0067]. Modified Karlewski and Annamalai do not expressly teach the annealing reduces an average CTE of the glass body. Annamalai teaches of mixed modifiers in the composition of low expansion silica-titania glasses [0106-108, 113] which reduce the CTE of the glass body once annealed and homogenized [0113]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to increase the average CTE of the glass body by overcompensating the recipe of Karlewski [0067] and use a known annealing step that reduces the average CTE of the glass body due to the mixed modifiers present in the glass composition taught by Annamalai. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Karlewski et al (DE-1020202016777A1), Annamalai et al (US-20190248696-A1), and Vlugter et al (2019, “Local tuning of fused silica thermal expansion coefficient using femtosecond laser”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Annamalai et al (US-20160168010-A1, henceforth referred to as “Annamalai ‘010”).
Regarding claim 6, depending from claim 1, modified Karlewski relies on the annealing taught by Annamalai [0014]. Annamalai does not expressly teach of a second anneal after the first anneal. In related low expansion glass art, Annamalai ‘010 teaches of silica-titania glass [0005] that undergoes a first annealing step [0033] and a second anneal [0034]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to perform a second anneal of the glass body to homogenize the spatial CTE or control the CTE slope [0034].
Regarding claims 7-8, depending from claim 6, modified Karlewski relies on the glass body of Annamalai ‘010 that is annealed twice [0034]. Should the twice annealed glass body continue to measure a spatial CTE outside of a tolerance range, Karlewski is motivated to homogenize the glass body so that the CTE across the glass body is sufficiently homogenized [0024]. Furthermore, the transposition of process steps, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Regarding claim 9, depending from claim 1, modified Karlewski relies on the silica-titania glass taught by Annamalai wherein Annamalai teaches of 0.1 wt% OH content [0175] which is about 1000 ppm. In related low expansion glass art, Annamalai ‘010 teaches of silica-titania glass with 0-3000 ppm OH content [0023]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use known silica-titania glass with OH content in the instant range as a low thermal expanding glass in the same field of endeavor [0002-3].
Claim(s) 10-12, 20, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Karlewski et al (DE-1020202016777A1), Annamalai et al (US-20190248696-A1), and Vlugter et al (2019, “Local tuning of fused silica thermal expansion coefficient using femtosecond laser”) as applied to claim 1/18/26 above, and further in view of Dejneka et al (US-20200024188-A1) as evidenced by Richter (US-20200331100-A1).
Regarding claim 10-12/20/28, depending from claim 1/18/26, Karlewski teaches the glass body is a glass plate (substrate 204, Fig. 4-6) and the irradiance has relative movement in the x direction (Fig. 5). Vlugter similarly teaches the x-axis movement of the laser beam (Fig. 1) and depth of the laser affected zone (Fig. 1 A-A, tl) while stating the laser beam has a focus point (p. 1 ¶ “The method consists of…”). Modified Karlewski does not expressly teach the relative movement between the focus point and glass body is between a first major surface, a second major surface, and the relative movement is between the two through the thickness of the glass body. In related modifying CTE of glass using laser beam art [0023], Dejneka teaches of directing the laser beam from a surface to a depth/into the bulk of the glass body [0039, 26], reading on a glass plate with a first major surface, a second major surface, and a thickness and the focus point varies along an axis through thickness/a plane extending between the two surfaces (Fig. 1 [0021]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to vary the focus point of the glass body that is a glass body through an axis extending through the thickness in a plane extending between the first major surface and the second major surface is reasonable combination when incorporating the x-axis transverse movement taught by Karlewski and Vlugter and the depth processing taught by Dejneka for the same endeavor of modifying the CTE of glass.
Though Dejneka teaches of heating with a laser from a surface to a depth/bulk of the glass body [0039, 26] to modify the CTE of glass [0023], Dejneka does not expressly state the focus point is moving. In related pulsed laser processing of glass art, Richter teaches of moving the depth of the focus of a pulsed laser beam [0010] in glass [0028]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the movement of the laser heating taught by Dejneka is the movement of the laser beam focus point as evidenced by Richter.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Karlewski et al (DE-1020202016777A1), Annamalai et al (US-20190248696-A1), and Vlugter et al (2019, “Local tuning of fused silica thermal expansion coefficient using femtosecond laser”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Englisch et al (US-20080274869-A1).
Regarding claim 17, depending from claim 1, Karlewski teaches of homogenizing the first CTE and second CTE (Fig. 6 [0014]) ; Karlewski teaches of using the non-linear relationship between CTE and temperature wherein CTE is effectively zero at the cero crossing temperature [0005]. Karlewski does not teach of producing a CTE gradient in the glass body. In related silica-titania glass for EUVL art [0002-3, 28], Englisch teaches of a silica-titania glass body wherein there is a controlled CTE gradient in discrete regions of the glass body (Fig. 3A) wherein the uncontrolled gradient (Fig. 3C) iteratively transitions (Fig. 3B) to the desired CTE gradient (Fig. 3A). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to utilize the method of modified Karlewski and further modify the laser direction to control the CTE as a function of position in the glass body to produce a desired CTE gradient as taught by Englisch. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20080305941-A teach silica-titania glass with inhomogeneous CTE values as a function of position
US-20050245382-A1 teach annealing silica-titania glass for EUVL substrates
DE-102012201075-A1, DE-102019204546-A1 teach homogenizing silica-titania glass for CTE purposes
US-20150239767-A, US-20160085145-A1 teaches controlling the CTE gradient as a function of temperature by modifying the composition of titania and hydroxyl in the silica glass body
US-20050233889-A1 teaches a glass composition with low CTE with a limited range of CTE modification and workable range of the laser parameters
US-20050112380-A1 teaches pulsed laser irradiation to modify density and index of refraction locally in fused silica
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 STEVEN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2645. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Mon-Thurs.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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 S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights