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 Amendment
The amendments filed 06/04/2024 have been entered. Claims 1-20 have been canceled and claims 21-44 have been added. Claims 21-44 are now pending in the application.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0034] recites “The opt element”, which Examiner believes should read ‘The optical element’;
[0041] recites “…which reflects or refracts the laser light away from the beam.”, which Examiner believes should read ‘…which reflects or refracts the laser light away from the seal.’;
[0074] refers to “processor 310”, however, the processor is previously indicated as item 320.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 24-25, 30, and 39 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24 recites “the laser beam”; While Examiner believes the term is definite in context, previous recitations refer to ‘a misaligned laser beam’; Consistent terminology should be used;
Claim 25 recites “…wherein the laser beam detection system comprises photodetectors, photodiodes, and/or a plurality of optical fibers configured to direct laser light to one or more photodetectors.” While Examiner believes the limitation is definite in context, the recitation of both ‘photodetectors…and/or a plurality of optical fibers configured to direct laser light to one or more photodetectors’ could lead to ambiguity issues as to whether the same photodetectors are being referred to; Examiner suggests adding a modifier onto the second recitation to differentiate the two types of detection elements, e.g., ‘and/or a plurality of optical fibers configured to direct laser light to one or more corresponding coupled photodetectors’, or some similar modifier;
Claim 30 lacks a period at the end of the claim;
Claims 39 recites “…by at least 5° (half cone angle).” While Examiner believes the limitation is definite in context, the wording should be clarified, e.g., ‘…by at least 5° in half cone angle.’.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-44 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites “…wherein the optical element is configured to redirect a misaligned laser beam to a detector or to split a misaligned laser beam into first and second sub-beams; and wherein the optical element is configured to direct the first sub-beam to the beam dump and to direct the second sub-beam to the laser beam detection system.” These limitations are inconsistent, as the optical element, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is only required to be “configured to redirect a misaligned laser beam to a detector or to split a misaligned laser beam into first and second sub-beams” (Emphasis added by Examiner). In the case of ‘redirecting’, the following limitation ‘wherein the optical element is configured to direct the first sub-beam to the beam dump and to direct the second sub-beam to the laser beam detection system.’ does not make sense, as there are no first and second sub-beams. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘“…wherein the optical element is configured to redirect a misaligned laser beam to a detector or to split a misaligned laser beam into first and second sub-beams, in which case the optical element is further configured to direct the first sub-beam to the beam dump and to direct the second sub-beam to the laser beam detection system.’.
Claims 23, 26-27, and 37 suffer from a similar issue to claim 1 above, and accordingly ‘the first sub-beam’ and ‘the second sub-beam’ in these claims are interpreted as ‘at least a part of the misaligned laser beam’.
Claim 23 appears to be missing an additional clause and is also missing punctuation because of this issue. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as only including what is explicitly included, in view of the above 112(b) issue: ‘wherein the optical element is configured to enlarge at least a part of the misaligned laser beam.’.
Claim 36 recites “…the translucent optical element is the optical element including a second opening, and the first opening and the second opening are coaxial with the first axis.” This limitation is unclear because ‘the translucent optical element is the optical element’, inherently requires that the translucent optical element comprises the second opening, i.e., that of the optical element required by claim 21. Accordingly, it is unclear if ‘including a second opening’ is intended to require an additional opening, or if this is an erroneous reference back to the previous recitation in claim 21. Furthermore, claim 21 also requires that the first and second openings are coaxial with the first axis. Accordingly, the recitations of ‘a second opening’ and ‘the second opening’ in claim 36 are indefinite, because it is unclear if ‘the second opening’ in claim 36 refers to the recitation of claim 21 or of claim 36, previously in the claim. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘“…the translucent optical element is the optical element, including the second opening.’.
Claim 38 recites “the misaligned laser beam”, which lacks antecedent basis in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘a laser beam misaligned with the first axis’.
Claims 41 recites “…a radiation source comprising an aperture of claim 21.” It is unclear what is required by the claim, as the claim recites no elements that an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand to be necessary to a radiation source, and an aperture alone is not a radiation source, as would be reasonably understood. While an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand ‘a radiation source’ to have several potential conventional elements, it is unclear what conventional elements would or wouldn’t be required of the radiation source, and as such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. Additionally, it is not clear whether the claim actually requires the limitations of claim 21 due to the phrasing “an aperture of claim 21”.
Claim 42 suffers from similar issues to claim 41.
Claims 43-44 suffers from the first issue discussed in regards to claim 41.
Examiner notes that the general use of apertures in radiation sources, metrology tools, and lithographic apparatuses is known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could readily determine where such systems could benefit from the use of a particular aperture with a particular utility.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Brookhyser (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20220048135 A1).
Regarding claim 38, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Brookhyser teaches an aperture comprising:
a body comprising a first opening and defining a first axis (See Figs. 7-14, items 700, 1000, having openings 720, 1024, including various potential axes defined thereby; In particular, the body is interpreted as the portion of the entry face of 702, 1002 that contains the openings);
a beam dump (See Figs. 7-14, items 718, 1022); and
an optical element including a second opening (See Figs. 7-14, items 700, 1000, having openings 722, 724, 1024, 1026, and in particular, the optical element is interpreted as the enclosure 702, 726, 728; 1002, 1030, 1032, excepting the portions of the entry face having the opening),
wherein the first opening and the second opening are coaxial with the first axis (See Figs. 7-14, showing several axes connecting the first and second openings), and
wherein the optical element is translucent (See Figs. 7-14, items 702, 726, 728, 1002, 1030, 1032; [0128]; [0135]; Examiner the disclosed materials, e.g., copper and aluminium alloys, and similar materials, include forms which are at least partially translucent to some IR and UV ranges) and is configured to diverge the misaligned laser beam (Examiner notes that if the optical element is translucent and in the path of the misaligned laser beam, it is inherently capable of diverging a misaligned laser beam).
For completeness:
In the alternative, Brookhyser also discloses the use of additional optical elements which are translucent and are configured to diverge the laser beam (See Fig. 30, items 3010a, 3010b; [0051]; [0230]-[0231]) and discloses combining embodiments in [0256].
Accordingly, it is Examiner’s opinion that it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brookhyser to explicitly include the diffusive/translucent element within the beam pickoff embodiment, as such elements are well represented in the prior art, and an ordinarily skilled artisan would readily recognize the potential utility of diffusing the beam to prevent localized energy distribution, which is known to potentially cause damage with the types of beams disclosed.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as such elements are well represented in the prior art, Brookhyser explicitly discloses using such elements on such a laser beam, and the disposal of the disclosed element in the pickoff embodiment would have predictable results, and would naturally spread the average energy across more of the beam dump, allowing for less heating, as would be readily understood and recognized by an ordinarily skilled artisan.
Regarding claim 40, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Brookhyser, as modified, teaches the aperture of claim 38.
Brookhyser further teaches wherein the optical element includes more than one translucent optical element (See Figs. 7-14, items 702, 726, 728, 1002, 1030, 1032; [0128]; [0135]; Examiner notes the disclosed materials, e.g., copper and aluminium alloys, and similar materials, include forms which are at least partially translucent to some IR and UV ranges) configured to diverge the misaligned laser beam (Examiner notes that if the optical element is translucent and in the path of the misaligned laser beam, it is inherently capable of diverging a misaligned laser beam).
For completeness:
See also, in the alternative: Fig. 30, items 3010a, 3010b; [0051]; [0230]-[0231]; [0256].
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 21-22, 24-37, and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookhyser (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20220048135 A1), as evidenced by Lambert (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20170367167 A1), Scaggs (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20110249256 A1), and Palomino (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20170123177 A1).
Examiner notes that Lambert, Scaggs, and Palomino are Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 08/21/2024.
Regarding claim 21, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Brookhyser teaches an aperture comprising:
a body comprising a first opening and defining a first axis (See Figs. 7-14, items 700, 1000, having openings 720, 1024, including various potential axes defined thereby; In particular, the body is interpreted as the portion of the entry face of 702, 1002 that contains the openings);
a beam dump (See Figs. 7-14, items 718, 1022);
a laser beam detection system configured to detect laser light (See Fig. 29, items 3014a, 3014b; [0227]-[0231]); and
an optical element comprising a second opening (See Figs. 7-14, items 700, 1000, having openings 722, 724, 1024, 1026, and in particular, the optical element is interpreted as the enclosure 702, 726, 728; 1002, 1030, 1032, excepting the portions of the entry face having the opening),
wherein the first opening and the second opening are coaxial with the first axis (See Figs. 7-14, showing several axes connecting the first and second openings),
wherein the optical element is configured to redirect a misaligned laser beam (See Figs. 7-14, showing beams off axis being redirected)
wherein the optical element is configured to direct the (See Figs. 7-14, showing surfaces of items 700, 1000 directing misaligned laser beam to the beam dump)
Brookhyser does not explicitly teach an optical element comprising a second opening …wherein the optical element is configured to redirect a misaligned laser beam to a detector or to split a misaligned laser beam into first and second sub-beams; and wherein the optical element is configured to direct the first sub-beam to the beam dump and to direct the second sub-beam to the laser beam detection system.
However, Brookhyser teaches an optical element…wherein the optical element is configured to redirect a misaligned laser beam to a detector or to split a misaligned laser beam into first and second sub-beams (See Fig. 30, items 3010a, 3010b; [0227]-[0231]); and wherein the optical element is configured (See Fig. 30; [0227]-[0231]).
Accordingly, Brookhyser teaches all of the structure and functionality, but does not teach the particular combination claimed, and does not have explicit disclosure to include the laser beam detection system as part of the aperture arrangement having the beam dump.
However, Brookhyser also discloses ([0127]-[0142]; [0223]; [0254]) that the positioning of the apertures is not particularly limited within the system, and further discloses in [0256] that all combinations of the embodiments are possible except where the constituent limitations would be mutually exclusive. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand this disclosure as allowing for the use of the beam sensing element(s) of Brookhyser within the aperture arrangements 700, 1000, as well as, allowing for the use of an optical element directly upstream of the beam sensing element(s) to split the beam into two sub-beams, the ‘weaker’ of which is directed toward the sensing element, while the ‘stronger’ is transmitted to another element, which is disclosed by the alternative embodiment of Brookhyser referenced above (See Fig. 30, items 3010a, 3010b; [0227]-[0231]).
Accordingly, Brookhyser discloses all of the necessary structure having the necessary functionality as required by the claim, and discloses such embodiments as combinable.
Furthermore, Lambert discloses a sub-module in a comparable laser beam system wherein an optical element splits the laser incident thereon into a sub-beam directed toward a beam dump, and a second sub-beam directed toward a sensing element (See Figs. 1, items 18b, 19, 20; [0040]-[0048]). Examiner additionally notes that the prior art documents Scaggs (See Fig. 2, items 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30; [0038]-[0052]) and Palomino (See Figs. 1-5; [0027]-[0033]) also each teach a sub-module configured to split an incident laser beam into a ‘stronger’ and ‘weaker’ sub-beams, with the ‘stronger’ beam being directed toward a beam dump, and the ‘weaker’ sub-beam being directed toward a sensing arrangement.
Accordingly, such an arrangement splitting a laser beam into sub-beams directed toward a sensor arrangement and a beam dump, respectively, as a sub-module in an EUV laser system would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be well understood in the art.
As such, it is Examiner’s opinion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brookhyser to combine the disclosed embodiments (i.e., the optical element disclosed in the alternative embodiment into the beam pickoff embodiment as a modification of the optical element therein) in the conventional manner disclosed by Lambert, Scaggs, and Palomino, in order to achieve an optical element comprising a second opening …wherein the optical element is configured to redirect a misaligned laser beam to a detector or to split a misaligned laser beam into first and second sub-beams; and wherein the optical element is configured to direct the first sub-beam to the beam dump and to direct the second sub-beam to the laser beam detection system (Emphases added by Examiner).
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use conventional elements (i.e., optical element to split beam, optical sensing elements, beam dump), in a conventional arrangement (i.e., as disclosed by Lambert, Scaggs, Palomino), to monitor the misaligned beam in the conventional manner, while maintaining the functionality as a beam pickoff as disclosed.
Regarding claim 22, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Brookhyser, as modified, teaches the aperture of claim 21.
Brookhyser further teaches wherein the optical element includes a partially reflective surface configured to reflect a portion of an incident laser beam and to transmit another portion of the incident laser beam (See Figs. 7-14, 30, various surfaces disclosed as reflective, and items 3010a, 3010b).
Regarding claim 24, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Brookhyser, as modified, teaches the aperture of claim 21.
Brookhyser further teaches wherein the laser beam detection system is configured to detect a misalignment of the laser beam and transmit a signal in response to the misalignment being detected ([0227]-[0231], and in particular [0229]).
Regarding claim 25, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Brookhyser, as modified, teaches the aperture of claim 21.
Brookhyser further teaches wherein the laser beam detection system comprises photodetectors, photodiodes, and/or a plurality of optical fibers configured to direct laser light to one or more photodetectors ([0227]-[0231]).
Regarding claim 26, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Brookhyser, as modified, teaches the aperture of claim 21.
Brookhyser does not explicitly teach wherein the optical element is configured to at least partially diffuse the second sub-beam (Emphasis added by Examiner).
However, the use of an optical element capable of at least partially diffusing a beam is well represented in the art, and Brookhyser discloses ([0051]) the use of beam expanders (and shapers, diffusers, etc.) to modify the beam as necessary within the system, and discloses in [0230] to expand or diffuse the beam prior to impinging on the sensor (Examiner notes the above 112(b) interpretation adopted above), and as discussed above, [0256] discloses combining such embodiments.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brookhyser to explicitly include wherein the optical element is configured to at least partially diffuse the second sub-beam (Emphasis added by Examiner), via combination of the embodiments of Brookhyser.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known method in order to achieve predictable results, as the use of such optical elements to change beam shape/size is well represented in the prior art, Brookhyser explicitly discloses diffusing the beam prior to the sensor, and the optical element being capable of diffusing the beam would have predictable results, namely, a spread of the beam energy over a greater area, which would naturally have physical results in the case of Brookhyser that would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 27, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Brookhyser, as modified, teaches the aperture of claim 21.
Brookhyser further teaches further comprising a diffuser to at least partially diffuse the second sub-beam ([0051]; [0227]-[0231], and in particular [0230]).
Regarding claim 28, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Brookhyser, as modified, teaches the aperture of claim 21.
Brookhyser further teaches wherein the optical element is configured to be transmissive to laser light of around 1 micron in wavelength ([0054]; [0228]).
Regarding claim 29, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Brookhyser, as modified, teaches the aperture of claim 21.
Brookhyser further teaches further comprising an enclosure which is optically transparent to light of a predetermined wavelength (See Figs. 7-14, items 702, 726, 728, 1002, 1030, 1032; [0128]; [0135]; Examiner notes aluminium alloys are known to include optically transparent forms).
Regarding claim 30, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Brookhyser, as modified, teaches the aperture of claim 29.
Brookhyser, as modified, further teaches wherein the enclosure encloses at least one of the optical element, the beam dump, and the laser beam detection system (See Figs. 7-14, showing optical element and beam dump within enclosure; Examiner additionally notes, that Brookhyser as modified includes the laser beam detection system in the enclosures 702, 1002)
Regarding claim 31, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Brookhyser, as modified, teaches the aperture of claim 29.
Brookhyser further teaches wherein the enclosure forms at least a part of the optical element (See Figs. 7-14, second openings in enclosure 702,1002, which are part of the optical element).
Regarding claim 32, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Brookhyser, as modified, teaches the aperture of claim 21.
Brookhyser, as modified, further teaches wherein the optical element is configured to enclose the beam dump and the laser beam detection system (See Figs. 7-14, showing beam dump within enclosure partially formed by the optical element; Examiner additionally notes, that Brookhyser as modified includes the laser beam detection system in the enclosures 702, 1002).
Regarding claim 33, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Brookhyser, as modified, teaches the aperture of claim 21.
Brookhyser further teaches further comprising a seal between the body and the optical element ([0141]; Examiner interprets enclosure comprising the optical element and the body being bonded together and sealed shut as reading on a seal between the body and the optical element, as they are sealed together).
Regarding claim 34, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Brookhyser, as modified, teaches the aperture of claim 33.
Brookhyser further teaches wherein the optical element is configured to direct laser light away from the seal (See Figs. 7-14, showing beam being directing beam from joining location of the optical elements and the body).
Regarding claim 35, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Brookhyser, as modified, teaches the aperture of claim 21.
Brookhyser further teaches further comprising a translucent optical element configured to diverge the misaligned laser beam ([0051]; [0230]-[0231]; Examiner notes that ‘translucent optical element’ is interpreted as an optical element that is at least partially transmissive and partially diffusive to the light of the beam).
Regarding claim 36, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Brookhyser, as modified, teaches the aperture of claim 35.
Brookhyser, as modified, further teaches wherein:
the translucent optical element is the optical element (See Fig. 30, items 3010a, 3010b; [0051]; [0227]-[0231]) including a second opening, and
the first opening and the second opening are coaxial with the first axis (See above 112(b) interpretation).
Regarding claim 37, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Brookhyser, as modified, teaches the aperture of claim 21.
Brookhyser further teaches wherein the optical element comprises a curved surface configured to enlarge the first sub-beam (See Fig. 30, items 3016; [0051]; [0227]-[0231]; Examiner notes the above 112(b) interpretation).
Regarding claim 41, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Brookhyser, as modified, teaches a radiation source ([0041]) comprising an aperture of claim 21 (See claim 21 for mapping).
Regarding claim 42, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Brookhyser, as modified, teaches a metrology tool ([0165]; [0227]-[0231]) comprising an aperture of claim 21 (See claim 21 for mapping).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookhyser (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20220048135 A1) in view of Scaggs (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20110249256 A1).
Regarding claim 23, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Brookhyser, as modified, teaches the aperture of claim 21.
Brookhyser does not explicitly teach wherein the optical element is configured to enlarge the first sub-beam (Emphasis added by Examiner).
However, the use of an optical element capable of enlarging a beam is well represented in the art, and Brookhyser discloses ([0051]) the use of beam expanders (and shapers, diffusers, etc.) to modify the beam as necessary within the system.
Nevertheless, Scaggs teaches an optical element that enlarges the beam (See Figs. 2-3, 4-6, items 16, 18, 38; Examiner notes the above 112(b) interpretation adopted above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brookhyser to explicitly include wherein the optical element is configured to enlarge the first sub-beam, as taught by Scaggs.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known method in order to achieve predictable results, as the use of such optical elements to change beam shape/size is well represented in the prior art, and the optical element being capable of enlarging the beam would have predictable results, namely, a spread of the beam energy over a greater area, which would naturally have physical results in the case of Brookhyser that would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookhyser (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20220048135 A1) in view of Lambert (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20170367167 A1).
Regarding claim 43, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Brookhyser, as modified, teaches (See claim 21 for mapping).
Brookhyser does not explicitly teach a lithographic apparatus, however, general lithographic apparatuses are well represented in the prior art.
Nevertheless, Lambert discloses a lithographic apparatus ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brookhyser to explicitly include a lithographic apparatus, as taught by Lambert.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as Brookhyser discloses using the items 700, 1000 in various contexts, as necessary, and could be readily applied with equivalent functionality to any such compatible system, and applying such an apparatus to a lithography system would have predictable results, as it would operate similarly as a beam pickoff.
Regarding claim 44, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Brookhyser, as modified, teaches
Brookhyser does not explicitly teach a lithographic apparatus, however, general lithographic apparatuses are well represented in the prior art.
Nevertheless, Lambert discloses a lithographic apparatus ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brookhyser to explicitly include a lithographic apparatus, as taught by Lambert.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as Brookhyser discloses using the items 700, 1000 in various contexts, as necessary, and could be readily applied with equivalent functionality to any such compatible system, and applying such an apparatus to a lithography system would have predictable results, as it would operate similarly as a beam pickoff.
Claims 21-22, 24-37, and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookhyser (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20220048135 A1).
Regarding claim 39, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Brookhyser, or in the alternative, Brookhyser, as modified, teaches the aperture of claim 38.
Brookhyser does not explicitly teach wherein the optical element is configured to diverge the misaligned laser beam by at least 5° (half cone angle).
However, in the alternative rejection, the divergence of the beam due to expander/diffuser elements such as those disclosed by Brookhyser are regularly capable of diverging a laser beam by 5°, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, a typical quartz or silica beam diffuser in the appropriate arrangement would be capable of diverging a laser beam by at least 5°, and an ordinarily skilled artisan would be readily comprised of such conventional expander/diffuser elements.
As such, it is Examiner’s opinion that, while Brookhyser does not explicitly teach the required range, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the disclosure of [0051] and [0230]-[0231] to implicitly disclosure such a capability, and thus, Brookhyser, as modified, sufficiently discloses the limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kirkham (US 20200400965 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, ROBERT H KIM can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881 /MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights