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
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.
Claims 1-10, 14, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa [US 2005/0130045] in view of Bencher et al. [US 10,571,809].
For claims 1, 9 and 14, Ozawa teaches providing a mask pattern data having a plurality of exposure areas (design data for a plurality of 3D objects, see Figs. 4 and 9), wherein each exposure area includes a gray pattern (gray scale, see [0065]-[0074]), the gray pattern comprising:
a plurality of sub-grids (cells of the matrix in the X and Y direction); and
a plurality of pattern areas in each sub-grid to vary a local exposure density at each sub-grid, the plurality of pattern areas corresponding to a local exposure density of each sub-grid (size of the transmissive opening, see [0077]); and
in a single exposure of a substrate having a photoresist layer disposed thereon (one exposure, see [0019]):
projecting the plurality of pattern areas of the gray pattern to the photoresist layer (exposure by projection apparatus, see Fig. 1); and
developing the photoresist layer to form a three-dimensional profile in the photoresist layer, the three-dimensional profile defined by the local exposure density at each sub-grid of each exposure area (exposure and development, see [0058]).
Ozawa fails to teach the exposure apparatus is a system, comprising: a slab; a moveable stage disposable over the slab, the moveable stage configured to support a substrate having a photoresist layer disposed thereon; a controller, embodied as a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a computer system to perform the method, configured to provide mask pattern data to a lithography system, and a lithography system support coupled to the slab having an opening to allow the moveable stage to pass thereunder, wherein: the lithography system has a processing unit with a plurality of image projection systems that receive the mask pattern data; each image projection system comprising a spatial light modulator with a plurality of spatial light modulator pixels to project a plurality of shots; and the controller is configured to instruct each of the spatial light modulators to project the plurality of shots in a single scan of the substrate.
Bencher teaches the exposure apparatus is a system (see Fig. 1), comprising:
a slab (102);
a moveable stage (114) disposable over the slab, the moveable stage configured to support a substrate having a photoresist layer disposed thereon (120);
a controller (122), embodied as a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a computer system to perform the method (see Fig. 5), configured to provide mask pattern data to a lithography system (the mask pattern data provided to the spatial light modulator 210 by the controller 122, see col. 3 line 63- col 5 line 60), and
a lithography system support (108) coupled to the slab having an opening (112) to allow the moveable stage to pass thereunder, wherein:
the lithography system has a processing unit (106) with a plurality of image projection systems that receive the mask pattern data;
each image projection system comprising a spatial light modulator (210) with a plurality of spatial light modulator pixels to project a plurality of shots (203, see Figs. 2A-2C) having a shot density that corresponds to dose or exposure light density (see col. 9 line 50 - col. 11 line 58); and
the controller is configured to instruct each of the spatial light modulators to project the plurality of shots in a single scan of the substrate (single pass exposure, see col. 5 line 32-col. 6 line 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the exposure system using a plurality of individually controllable spatial light modulators to form a pattern by projecting a plurality of shots as taught by Belcher to implement the exposure method as taught by Ozawa because an exposure system providing a plurality of projection systems and associated controllable spatial light modulators allows for exposure a large area in a short amount of time while reducing lead time required to manufacture a photomask, thereby increasing throughput.
For claim 2, Ozawa teaches the local exposure density corresponds to a ratio of area of the pattern area to each sub-grid (transmissive area of cell in the matrix, see [0077] and Fig. 6) and Bencher teaches shot density (see col. 9 line 50 - col. 11 line 58).
For claim 3, Ozawa teaches increasing the local exposure density to increase a thickness of the photoresist layer to be removed during development (see Figs. 3 and 9) and Bencher teaches a controller to control the SLM shot density and mask pattern data (see col. 3 line 49 - col. 6 line 42 and col. 9 line 50 - col. 11 line 58).
For claim 4, Ozawa teaches decreasing the local exposure density to decrease a thickness of the photoresist layer to be removed during development (see Figs. 3 and 9) and Bencher teaches a controller to control the SLM shot density and mask pattern data (see col. 3 line 49 - col. 6 line 42 and col. 9 line 50 - col. 11 line 58).
For claim 5, in the combination, Bencher teaches the controller is configured to instruct the plurality of shots to be projected to the plurality of pattern areas, wherein the plurality of shots exposes the photoresist layer to an intensity of light emitted from the image projection systems to form a three-dimensional profile in the photoresist layer (see col. 3 line 49 - col. 6 line 42).
For claim 6, Ozawa teaches the three-dimensional profile is curved, spherical, aspherical, concave, convex, tapered, half-cylindrical, or angled profile (see Figs. 7, 9, and 11-13E).
For claim 7, in the combination, Bencher teaches each spatial light modulator pixel of the plurality of spatial light modulator pixels of the spatial light modulator is individually controllable by the controller (see col. 3 line 49 - col. 6 line 42).
For claim 8, Ozawa teaches the local exposure density defined by each pattern area in one sub-grid is different than the local exposure density in at least one adjacent sub-grid (see opening size in Fig. 9) and Bencher teaches a controller to control the SLM shot density and mask pattern data (see col. 3 line 49 - col. 6 line 42 and col. 9 line 50 - col. 11 line 58).
For claims 10 and 15, in the combination, Bencher teaches each image projection system comprises a spatial light modulator with a plurality of mirrors to project the plurality of shots to the exposure area of an aggregated shot pattern (see Fig. 1 and col. 3 line 49 - col. 6 line 42).
For claim 19, Ozawa teaches the plurality of pattern areas of the gray pattern are derived based on the local exposure density desired at each sub-grid (see [0065]-[0074]) and Bencher teaches a controller to control the SLM shot density and mask pattern data (see col. 3 line 49 - col. 6 line 42 and col. 9 line 50 - col. 11 line 58).
For claim 20, Ozawa teaches comprising performing an etch process on the photoresist layer such that the three-dimensional profile can be transferred into one or more underlying film layers disposed under the photoresist layer (see [0074]).
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa in view of Bencher as applied to claims 9 and 14 above, and further in view of Klosner et al. [US 7,164,465].
For claims 11 and 16, Ozawa and Bencher both fail to teach a pulse width of a light source in each image projection system multiplied by a speed of the single scan of the substrate is about 100% to 150% of a pixel pitch, wherein the pixel pitch is a distance between adjacent centroids of spatial light modulator pixels in the plurality of image projection systems.
Klosner teaches in col. 5 lines 40-55: the substrate scans at a constant velocity, while the DMD spatial light modulator remains stationary, image blurring results due to the finite duration of the illumination pulse, and therefore the pulse width must be short enough to maintain the blurring below a maximum-acceptable level, which we typically set at less than 1/5th the minimum feature size. In order to optimize throughput, the system should operate at the fastest possible pattern transfer rate, limited either by the frame rate of the DMD or the maximum repetition rate of the laser.
Where pixel pitch is a constant, see col. 4 lines 54-60.
Further, there is no evidence showing the criticality of the claimed range.
According to well established patent law precedent (see, for example, M.P.E.P. §2144.05) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine (for example by routine experimentation) the optimum scan speed and pulse width relative the pixel pitch of the spatial light modulator in order to provide for desired blur and optimized throughput.
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa in view of Bencher as applied to claims 9 and 14 above, and further in view of Satoh [US 6,519,761].
For claims 12 and 17 in the combination, Bencher teaches the plurality of image projection systems, each providing a plurality of shots (see Figs. 1-2C and col. 3 line 49 - col. 6 line 42) but fails to teach the exposure is out of focus, wherein exposure radiation is blurred in the exposure areas.
Satoh the exposure is out of focus, wherein exposure radiation is blurred in the exposure areas (see col. 12 lines 48-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the blurred exposure as taught by Satoh in the exposure as taught in the combination of Ozawa and Bencher in order to provide a gradient to the exposure pattern and further smooth the gray scale pattern.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa in view of Bencher as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Wang et al. [US 2021/0223694].
For claim 18, Ozawa fails to teach a baking process, wherein the photoresist layer is baked at a temperature of about 150° C. to about 250° C.
Wang teaches a baking process, wherein the photoresist layer is baked at a temperature of about 150° C. to about 250° C (see [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the post exposure bake as taught by Wang in the method as taught by Ozawa to further deform the resist after exposure to achieve a desired resist shape.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on page 7, regarding claims 1, 9, and 14, that the modification of Ozawa by Bencher would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because the transmissive mask using as the patterning device of Ozawa would be supplanted by the maskless design of Bencher.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The intended purpose of Ozawa, described in [0065]-[0077], is providing a mask for gray tone exposure of the photoresist by varying the amount of light transmitted to the resist based on the desired resist pattern. The intended purpose of Bencher is to also provide an exposure pattern for grey tone exposure, but instead of requiring the manufacture of a static pattern transmissive mask, a maskless design provides for an object pattern at a spatial light modulator that is configurable in place, thereby allowing for a variety of patterns over a larger area that is scalable based on substrate size. The pattern formed by the spatial light modulator of Bencher can incorporate the method of designing the pattern using Ozawa and further increasing the functionality of its application. Ozawa is not rendered unsatisfactory for its original purpose because the mask pattern generation is applied to the spatial light modulator.
The Applicant argues on page 8, regarding claims 1, 9, and 14, that the modification of Ozawa by Bencher would change the principal operation of Ozawa because Ozawa changes the intensity distribution by the arrangement of patterns of the mask while Bencher changing the exposure dose using the spatial light modulators and differing intensity shots.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The patterns generated by the spatial light modulators of Bencher allow for creating a pattern density distribution by turning the individual pixels on and off (see Figs. 2A-2C and col. 5 line 4-col 6 line 42) to generate a pattern having desired polygonal or pixel type shapes similar to Ozawa, thereby implementing the desired intensity distribution across the surface of the substrate.
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 Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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 H Whitesell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759