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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato [US 6,333,777 B1] in view of Komatsu et al. [US 2008/0079855 A1].
Regarding claims 1, 2 , 9 and 10, Sato discloses an illumination optical system (as shown in Fig. 1) / an irradiation method (Figs. 7), which irradiates a target object (14) with light from a light source unit (1), comprising:
an integrator optical system (7) that is disposed on an optical path of the light emitted from the light source unit (1) and uniformizes an illuminance distribution of the light with which the target object (14) is to be irradiated (Col. 4 lines 49-57 teaches the optical integrator system);
an input lens (5) that is disposed on a light incident side (as shown in Fig. 1) of the integrator optical system (7);
an aperture (8) that is disposed on a light emission side (Col. 4 lines 49-57 teaches the aperture) of the integrator optical system (7); and
a condenser lens (10) that irradiates the target object (14) with light emitted from the aperture (as shown in Fig. 1),
the aperture (8) having a size larger than a size of an irradiation region of the light with which the target object is to be irradiated (Col. 3 lines 24-27, teaches a stop member having a constant or variable aperture diameter to variably define a light intensity distribution, see also Fig. 1, with a smaller aperture at the target object).
Sato does not teach a bandpass filter that is disposed between the input lens and the integrator optical system.
However, Sato discloses an adjusting means for adjusting an incidence angle of illumination light (col. 4 lines 41-48) or alternatively, it may use an optical filter such as an ND filter on the light entrance surface of the optical integrator (Col. 59-63). Further, Komatsu et al. discloses an imaging apparatus using a bandpass filter for narrow-banding the beam with a half-power bandwidth (paragraph [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a bandpass filter for narrow-banding the beam with a half-power bandwidth, as taught by Komatsu et al. in the system of Sato because such a modification provides a suitable alternative adjusting means for adjusting an incidence angle of illumination light wherein improvement of the oscillation efficiency and the yield can be expected (paragraph [0017] of Komatsu et al.).
Regarding claims 3, Komatsu et al. discloses wherein the bandpass filter has a half bandwidth of 10 nm or less (paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Sato discloses an exposure apparatus including the illumination optical system, wherein the illumination optical system is configured to irradiate an exposure mask (14) with light (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Sato discloses further comprising a masking blade (12) that is disposed within a range of 15 mm with respect to the exposure mask (14), light for irradiation being partially blocked by the masking blade (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 7, Sato discloses an exposure apparatus including the illumination optical system, further comprising: a masking blade (12); and a masking blade projection optical system (16) that projects light emitted from an opening of the masking blade onto an exposure mask (14), the illumination optical system being configured to irradiate the opening of the masking blade with light (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 8 and 12, Sato discloses further comprising a projection optical system (16) that projects a pattern of the exposure mask (14) irradiated with the light onto an exposure target object (as shown in Fig. 1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Komatsu et al. and further in view of Shinoda [US 7,385,672 B2].
Regarding claims 4, Sato as modified discloses the illumination optical system, as applied above.
Sato as modified does not teach further comprising: a beam splitter that is disposed on an optical path from the integrator optical system to the condenser lens and splits the light emitted from the integrator optical system into first split light and second split light, the first split light traveling toward the condenser lens along the optical path, the second split light traveling in a direction deviated from the optical path; and a sensor unit that is disposed at a position on which the second split light is to be incident and detects a state of light.
However, Shinoda discloses an illumination optical system wherein a beam splitter (14e) that is disposed on an optical path from the integrator optical system to the condenser lens and splits the light emitted from the integrator optical system into first split light and second split light, the first split light traveling toward the condenser lens along the optical path, the second split light traveling in a direction deviated from the optical path; and a sensor unit (65) that is disposed at a position on which the second split light is to be incident and detects a state of light (as shown in Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a sensor and a beam splitter to detect the quality of light, as taught by Shinoda in the system of Sato as modified because such a modification provides a suitable alternative mechanism for detecting the quality of light (Col.6 lines 23-30 of Shinoda).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the applied references does not teach “a bandpass filter that is disposed between the input lens and the integrator optical system”, since “a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to incorporate the bandpass filter described in Komatsu into the system of Sato, and such a modification would not have been obvious”, see pages 2-4 of the remarks.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Sato is an illumination optical system / an irradiation method, which irradiates a target object with light from a light source unit wherein the system comprises an integrator, an input lens, a filter, an aperture, condenser lens (as shown in Fig. 1). Komatsu et al. discloses an imaging apparatus using a bandpass filter for narrow-banding the beam. Therefore, the combined teachings of Sato and Komatsu et al. would provide an illumination optical system / an irradiation method, which irradiates a target object with light from a light source unit wherein the system comprises an integrator, an input lens, a bandpass filter, an aperture, condenser lens because such a modification provides a suitable alternative adjusting means for adjusting an incidence angle of illumination light.
As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection under 35 USC § 103 is maintained.
Conclusion
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 DEORAM PERSAUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Minh-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.
/DEORAM PERSAUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights