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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the light receiving element arranged in the projection unit of claim 14 and the dimming member fixed to the SLM of claim 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a dimming member” in claims 1-3 and 29 and “a light receiving element” in claims 10 and 42.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 17, 29 and 30 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.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is directed to the dimming member fixed to the spatial light modulator. However, claim 1, from which claim 17 depend, the dimming member is not in contact with the spatial modulator.
Because the language of claim 17, totally contradicts that of claim 1, no assumption can be made and the art rejection is withheld until further clarification or correction is provided.
Regarding claims 29 and 30, “a direction corresponding to the scanning direction” in claim 29 and “a first direction closer to the scanning direction” in claim 30 are vague and unclear. What does it mean for a direction to be “corresponding” or “closer”? How close is “closer”? In order to expedite prosecution, it is assumed that any direction from 0 to 45 degrees from the scanning direction is considered “corresponding” or “closer”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 21, 22, 28 and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (JP 2019-117271 in IDS, para number refers to the translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi discloses an exposure device (Fig. 1, para 0010) that irradiates an object (11, para 0011) scanned in a scanning direction (Y-direction) with light from a spatial light modulator (6, para 0010, 0011) to expose the object, the exposure device comprising: an illumination unit (16, Fig. 2, para 0013) that illuminates the spatial light modulator with illumination light, wherein the illumination unit includes: an optical integrator (19, para 0013) into which the illumination light enters (Fig. 2); and a dimming member (3, Fig. 1, 3, para 0014, 0017) that is disposed on an optical path between an emission surface of the optical integrator and the spatial light modulator (Fig. 1, 2), is disposed at a position where the dimming member is not in contact with the optical integrator nor the spatial light modulator (Fig. 1, 2), and dims a part of the illumination light (para 0013-0017).
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi discloses an exposure device (Fig. 1, para 0010) that irradiates an object (11, para 0011) scanned in a scanning direction (Y-direction) with light from a spatial light modulator (6, para 0010, 0011) to expose the object, the exposure device comprising: an illumination unit (16, Fig. 2, para 0013) that illuminates the spatial light modulator with illumination light; and a projection unit (8, 9, 10, Fig. 1, para 0011) that projects light from the spatial light modulator onto the object, wherein the illumination unit includes: an optical integrator (19, para 0013); a condenser lens (20, para 0013) disposed in an optical path between the optical integrator and the spatial light modulator (Fig. 1, 2); and a dimming member (3, Fig. 1, 3, para 0014, 0017) that is disposed in an optical path between the condenser lens and the spatial light modulator (Fig. 1, 2) and dims at least a part of light with which the spatial light modulator is illuminated (para 0013-0017), wherein the dimming member forms an illuminance distribution along a first direction corresponding to the scanning direction through the projection unit in at least a part of an illumination region on the spatial light modulator (Fig. 4, 5, para 0013-0017, illumination distribution formed by the dimming member in Fig. 5(a)).
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi discloses a holder (13) that is capable of holding the object and is movable in the scanning direction (para 0011, 0012).
Regarding claim 5, Kobayashi discloses wherein the spatial light modulator is a digital micromirror device (para 0010), and wherein the dimming member (3) is disposed at a position where the illumination light reflected by the digital micromirror device is not applied (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Kobayashi discloses a condenser lens (20, para 0013) that is disposed on an optical path between the optical integrator and the spatial light modulator and into which the illumination light having passed through the optical integrator enters (Fig. 1, 2), wherein the dimming member (3) is disposed on an optical path between the condenser lens (20) and the spatial light modulator (6, Fig. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 8, Kobayashi discloses wherein the dimming member (3) is disposed at a position closer to the condenser lens (20) than to the spatial light modulator (6) on an optical path between the condenser lens and the spatial light modulator (Fig. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi discloses a mirror (5, para 0010), wherein the spatial light modulator (6) is a digital micromirror device (para 0010), and wherein the mirror (5) is disposed on an optical path between the condenser lens (20, Fig. 2) and the spatial light modulator (6), and reflects the illumination light toward the digital micromirror device (Fig. 1, para 0010).
Regarding claim 21, Kobayashi discloses wherein the dimming member has an opening, and wherein the dimming member dims a part of the illumination light and allows another part of the illumination light to pass through the opening (filter 3, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 22, Kobayashi discloses wherein the dimming member has a surface that dims a part of the illumination light, the surface being substantially orthogonal to an optical axis of the illumination light (filter 3, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 28, Kobayashi discloses wherein the dimming member is a filter (3, Fig.1) that dims a part of the illumination light (para 0014).
Regarding claim 46, Kobayashi discloses wherein the object is a substrate (para 0011).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyake et al. (Miyake) (2017/0090297).
Regarding claim 2, Miyake discloses an exposure device (Fig. 1, para 0030) that irradiates an object (W, para 0030) scanned in a scanning direction (Y-direction, para 0041) with light from a spatial light modulator (2, para 0031) to expose the object, the exposure device comprising: an illumination unit (LS, para 0031) that illuminates the spatial light modulator with illumination light, wherein the illumination unit includes: an optical integrator (8, micro fly’s eye lens, para 0035) that includes a plurality of lenses and into which the illumination light enters; and a dimming member (4, para 0031, 0034, 0035) that is disposed with respect to some of the plurality of lenses and dims a part of the illumination light incident on the some of the plurality of lenses (changing or controlling the light intensity distribution involves dimming a part of the illumination light), wherein the dimming member is disposed on a conjugate plane with the spatial light modulator in the optical integrator (para 0055, 0056).
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 and 19-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (JP 2006-065118 in IDS, para number refers to the translation).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi discloses exposure device (Fig. 4, para 0030) that irradiates an object (30) with light from a spatial light modulator (DMD 10, para 0030) to expose the object, the exposure device comprising: an illumination unit (1) that illuminates the spatial light modulator with illumination light, wherein the illumination unit includes: an optical integrator (rod 3, para 0031) into which the illumination light enters; and a dimming member (aperture stop 6) that is disposed on an optical path between an emission surface of the optical integrator and the spatial light modulator, is disposed at a position where the dimming member is not in contact with the optical integrator nor the spatial light modulator (Fig. 4), and dims a part of the illumination light (aperture stop 6 would limit the amount of the light that reaches the spatial light modulator dimming part of the light). Although Hayashi does not explicitly disclose that the object is scanned in a scanning direction, moving the object in a scanning direction while being exposed is well known and commonly used in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to expose the object by scanning it in order to obtain more precise higher resolution pattern.
Regarding claim 19, although Hayashi does not disclose wherein the dimming member has an acute angle between a surface that dims a part of the illumination light and a side surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the aperture stop having a knife edge side or an acute angle on the side in order to minimize edge reflection and reduce scattering.
Regarding claim 20, although Hayashi does not disclose wherein the dimming member includes a first member and a second member, and wherein the first member and the second member are arranged symmetrically with respect to an optical axis of the illumination light, Hayashi discloses in Fig. 2, a projector with the similar arrangement as the exposure device of Fig. 4. Hayashi discloses in Fig. 2, an optical integrator (3), a dimming member (FS 4) and a spatial light modulator (DMD 10, para 0023-0026) wherein the dimming member (FS 4) includes a first member and a second member, and wherein the first member and the second member are arranged symmetrically with respect to an optical axis of the illumination light (Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a field stop including a first member and a second member, and wherein the first member and the second member are arranged symmetrically with respect to an optical axis instead of an aperture stop since a field stop is another means of limiting the amount of light.
Regarding claim 21, Hayashi discloses wherein the dimming member has an opening, and wherein the dimming member dims a part of the illumination light and allows another part of the illumination light to pass through the opening (aperture stop 6).
Regarding claim 22, Hayashi discloses wherein the dimming member has a surface that dims a part of the illumination light, the surface being substantially orthogonal to an optical axis of the illumination light (aperture stop 6, Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 23 and 24, although Hayashi does not disclose wherein a surface of the dimming member that dims a part of the illumination light is substantially parallel to a neutral plane including a center point of each of the plurality of elements of the spatial light modulator or wherein a surface of the dimming member that dims a part of the illumination light is substantially parallel to a surface of an element of the spatial light modulator when the spatial light modulator is powered off, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the aperture stop 6 in Fig. 4 or the field stop 4 in Fig. 2 parallel to a neutral plane including a center point of each of the plurality of elements of the spatial light modulator and parallel to a surface of an element of the spatial light modulator when the spatial light modulator is powered off since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art and configuration of the filed stop or aperture stop is a matter of a design choice.
Regarding claim 25, Hayashi discloses wherein the dimming member is a light shielding member that shields a part of the illumination light (aperture stop 6).
Claim(s) 7, 18, 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi.
Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi discloses the claimed invention as discussed above. Although Kobayashi does not disclose wherein the dimming member is disposed at a position closer to the spatial light modulator than to the condenser lens on an optical path between the condenser lens and the spatial light modulator, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the dimming member (filter 3) closer to the spatial light modulator (6) in order to improve quality and reduce background noise since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, although Kobayashi does not disclose a changing unit that changes a distance between the spatial light modulator and the dimming member in an optical axis direction of the illumination light, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an actuator to move the dimming member (filter 3) to change the distance between the spatial light modulator and dimming member in order to optimize alignment between the two devices since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 26 and 27, although Kobayashi does not disclose wherein the dimming member is a glass having a light shielding pattern that shields a part of the illumination light and wherein the light shielding pattern is a dot pattern in which an arrangement density decreases from an end portion of the glass toward a central portion of the glass, Kobayashi discloses a filter 3 with varying transmittance (para 0014). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a filter having a glass having a light shielding pattern that shields a part of the illumination light and wherein the light shielding pattern is a dot pattern in which an arrangement density decreases from an end portion of the glass toward a central portion of the glass since using a glass having a light shielding patter of dots having density arrangement as claimed is a matter of a design choice.
Claim(s) 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deguenther et al. (Deguenther) (2015/0146183).
Regarding claim 29, Deguenther discloses an exposure device (Fig. 1, 3, para 0125-0127) that irradiates an object (24, para 0127) scanned in a scanning direction (A2, para 0129) with light from a spatial light modulator (52, para 0144) to expose the object, the exposure device comprising: an illumination unit (11, para 0140) that illuminates the spatial light modulator with illumination light having a non-uniform illuminance distribution on the spatial light modulator (para 0154, “the micromirrors 56 of the spatial light modulator 52 in such a manner that the angular irradiance distribution in the mask plane 88 is uniform” implies that the illumination distribution is non-uniform); and a control unit (90, para 0154) configured to control an on state and an off state of a plurality of elements included in the spatial light modulator based on the non-uniform illuminance distribution during scanning of the object (para 0154, “the micromirrors 56 of the spatial light modulator 52 in such a manner that the angular irradiance distribution in the mask plane 88 is uniform”). Although Deguenther does not disclose illumination light having a non-uniform illuminance distribution on the spatial light modulator specifically in a direction corresponding to the scanning direction, Deguenther discloses the spatial light modulator 52 which is two-dimensional for adjusting non-uniformity in not only the directions that correspond with the scanning direction but other directions as well. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an illumination unit with non-uniform illuminance distribution in the direction corresponding to the scanning direction since the spatial light modulator of Deguenther is configured to adjust the illumination distribution in many directions.
Regarding claim 30, although Deguenther does not disclose wherein the illumination light has a non-uniform illuminance distribution in a first direction closer to the scanning direction, of two directions that are arrangement directions of the plurality of elements, Deguenther discloses the spatial light modulator 52 which is two-dimensional for adjusting non-uniformity in not only the first directions that is closer to the scanning direction but other directions as well. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an illumination unit with non-uniform illuminance distribution in the direction corresponding to the scanning direction since the spatial light modulator of Deguenther is configured to adjust the illumination distribution in many directions.
Claim(s) 10-16, 29-32, 36, 37, 39-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Deguenther et al. (Deguenther).
Regarding claim 10, Kobayashi discloses wherein the spatial light modulator includes a plurality of elements arranged two-dimensionally (para 0010), and wherein the exposure device further comprises: a light receiving element (15, Fig. 1, para 0012) that receives at least a part of the light; and a control unit (7, para 0012). However, Kobayashi does not disclose that the control element determines an element to be turned on or off among the plurality of elements based on a measurement result of the at least part of the light by the light receiving element.
Deguenther discloses an exposure device (Fig. 1, 3, para 0125-0127) that irradiates an object (24, para 0127) scanned in a scanning direction (A2, para 0129) with light from a spatial light modulator (52, para 0144) to expose the object, the exposure device comprising: an illumination unit (11, para 0140) that illuminates the spatial light modulator with illumination light, and control unit (90) to control the spatial light modulator to obtain an uniform or desired illumination distribution (para 0154). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the method of controlling the spatial light modulator to turn on or off an element of the plurality of elements based on the measurement result of the light receiving element in order to obtain uniform or desired illumination distribution as taught by Deguenther.
Regarding claim 11, Kobayashi does not disclose wherein the control unit determines an element to be turned off based on the measurement result. Deguenther discloses controlling the spatial light modulator to obtain an uniform or a desired illumination distribution (para 0154). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the method of controlling the spatial light modulator to turn on or off an element of the plurality of elements based on the measurement result of the light receiving element in order to obtain uniform or desired illumination distribution as taught by Deguenther.
Regarding claim 12, Kobayashi does not disclose wherein the control unit determines an element to be turned on among elements that have been turned off in advance in the plurality of elements based on the measurement result. Deguenther discloses controlling the spatial light modulator to obtain an uniform or a desired illumination distribution (para 0154). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the method of controlling the spatial light modulator to turn on or off an element of the plurality of elements based on the measurement result of the light receiving element in order to obtain uniform or desired illumination distribution as taught by Deguenther.
Regarding claim 13, Kobayashi discloses a holder (inherent) that is capable of holding the object (11) and is movable in the scanning direction (para 0011, 0012); and a projection unit (8, 9, 10, Fig. 1) that projects the light onto the object (para 0011), wherein the light receiving element (15) is arranged on a stage (13) on which the holder is mounted, and receives the illumination light that has passed through the projection unit (para 0012, 0015, 0016).
Regarding claim 14, Kobayashi discloses a projection unit that projects the light onto the object (8, 9, 10, Fig. 1, para 0011). Although Kobayashi does not disclose wherein the light receiving element is arranged in the projection unit and receives the illumination light passing through the projection unit, Kobayashi discloses the light receiving element (15) arranged on the object stage (13, para 0012) to receive the light that passed through the projection unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the light receiving element in the projection unit to receive the illumination light passing through the projection unit since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, although Kobayashi does not disclose wherein the control unit performs control such that elements to be turned off among the plurality of elements are continuous along a first direction closer to the scanning direction, of two directions that are arrangement directions of the plurality of elements and wherein the control unit performs control such that elements to be turned off among the plurality of elements are continuous along a second direction different from the first direction of the two directions that are the arrangement directions of the plurality of elements, Kobayashi discloses two-dimensional spatial light modulator with a large number of movable micromirrors arranged in a matrix in the XY plane (para 0010, 11) that are controlled by the control unit (7). Deguenther discloses two-dimensional spatial light modulator with a large number of movable micromirrors arranged in a matrix in the XY plane (Fig. 5) that are controlled by the control unit (90, para 0154). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the elements to be turned off among the plurality of elements are continuous along a first direction closer to the scanning direction and to control the elements to be turned off among the plurality of elements are continuous along a second direction different from the first direction of the two directions that are the arrangement directions of the plurality of elements depending on the desired uniformity or desired illuminance distribution.
Regarding claim 29, Kobayashi discloses an exposure device (Fig. 1, para 0010) that irradiates an object (11, para 0011) scanned in a scanning direction (Y-direction) with light from a spatial light modulator (6, para 0010, 0011) to expose the object, the exposure device comprising: an illumination unit (16, Fig. 2, para 0013) that illuminates the spatial light modulator with illumination light having a non-uniform illuminance distribution on the spatial light modulator (Fig. 4(a), para 0016); and a control unit (7, para 0012). However, Kobayashi does not disclose that the illumination light has a non-uniform illuminance distribution on the spatial light modulator in a direction corresponding to the scanning direction and the control unit is configured to control an on state and an off state of a plurality of elements included in the spatial light modulator based on the non-uniform illuminance distribution during scanning of the object. Deguenther discloses an exposure device (Fig. 1, 3, para 0125-0127) that irradiates an object (24, para 0127) scanned in a scanning direction (A2, para 0129) with light from a spatial light modulator (52, para 0144) to expose the object, the exposure device comprising: an illumination unit (11, para 0140) that illuminates the spatial light modulator with illumination light, and control unit (90) to control the spatial light modulator to obtain an uniform or desired illumination distribution (para 0154). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the method of controlling the spatial light modulator to turn on or off an element of the plurality of elements based on the measurement result of the light receiving element in order to obtain uniform or desired illumination distribution as taught by Deguenther. Further, since both Kobayashi discloses two-dimensional spatial light modulator with a large number of movable micromirrors arranged in a matrix in the XY plane (para 0010, 11 in Kobayashi and Fig. 5 and para 0144 in Deguenther), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to compensate for nonuniformity in the direction corresponding to the scanning direction or plurality of other directions.
Regarding claim 30, Kobayashi does not disclose wherein the illumination light has a non-uniform illuminance distribution in a first direction closer to the scanning direction, of two directions that are arrangement directions of the plurality of elements, since both Kobayashi discloses two-dimensional spatial light modulator with a large number of movable micromirrors arranged in a matrix in the XY plane (para 0010, 11 in Kobayashi and Fig. 5 and para 0144 in Deguenther), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to compensate for nonuniformity in the direction closer to the scanning direction or plurality of other directions.
Regarding claim 31, Kobayashi discloses wherein the illumination unit includes an integrator (19, Fig. 2) that divides and superimposes the illumination light, and wherein a dimming member (3, Fig. 1) that dims a part of the illumination light is provided on an optical path of the illumination light between the integrator and the spatial light modulator (Fig 1, 2, para 0010-0014).
Regarding claim 32, Kobayashi discloses wherein the dimming member dims a part of the illumination light along a second direction different from the first direction of the two directions that are the arrangement directions of the plurality of elements (Fig. 3, para 0014).
Regarding claims 36 and 37, although Kobayashi does not disclose wherein the dimming member is a glass having a light shielding pattern that shields a part of the illumination light and wherein the light shielding pattern is a dot pattern in which an arrangement density decreases from an end portion of the glass toward a central portion of the glass, Kobayashi discloses a filter 3 with varying transmittance (para 0014). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a filter having a glass having a light shielding pattern that shields a part of the illumination light and wherein the light shielding pattern is a dot pattern in which an arrangement density decreases from an end portion of the glass toward a central portion of the glass since using a glass having a light shielding patter of dots having density arrangement as claimed is a matter of a design choice.
Regarding claim 39, Kobayashi discloses wherein a lower surface of the dimming member (3) is substantially orthogonal to an optical axis of the illumination light (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 40, Kobayashi discloses wherein, when exposing a predetermined area of the object (11), the control unit (7) projects (8, 9, 10) the light onto the object every time the object moves by a predetermined distance in the scanning direction so that spot positions indicating centers of the illumination light emitted from the plurality of elements and applied to the predetermined area are arranged in a predetermined arrangement (para 0010-0012). Although Kobayashi does not disclose wherein the control unit performs control such that elements to be turned off among the plurality of elements are continuous along a first direction for substantially the predetermined distance, Kobayashi discloses two-dimensional spatial light modulator with a large number of movable micromirrors arranged in a matrix in the XY plane (para 0010, 11) that are controlled by the control unit (7). Deguenther discloses two-dimensional spatial light modulator with a large number of movable micromirrors arranged in a matrix in the XY plane (Fig. 5) that are controlled by the control unit (90, para 0154). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the elements to be turned off among the plurality of elements are continuous along a first direction for the predetermined distance depending on the desired uniformity or desired illuminance distribution.
Regarding claim 41, although Kobayashi does not disclose a changing unit that changes a distance between the spatial light modulator and the dimming member in an optical axis direction of the illumination light, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an actuator to move the dimming member (filter 3) to change the distance between the spatial light modulator and dimming member in order to optimize alignment between the two devices since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 42, Kobayashi discloses a stage (13, Fig. 1) on which the object (11) is placed; a projection unit (8, 9, 10, Fig. 1) that projects the light onto the object (para 0011); and a light receiving element (15) that is provided on the stage (13) and receives at least a part of the light generated by the spatial light modulator and projected through the projection unit (para 0012, 0015, 0016).
Regarding claim 43, Kobayashi does not disclose wherein the control unit determines an element to be turned on or an element to be turned off among the plurality of elements based on a measurement result of the part of the light by the light receiving element. Deguenther discloses a control unit (90) to control the spatial light modulator to obtain an uniform or desired illumination distribution (para 0154). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the method of controlling the spatial light modulator to turn on or off an element of the plurality of elements based on the measurement result of the light receiving element in order to obtain uniform or desired illumination distribution as taught by Deguenther.
Regarding claims 44 and 45, Kobayashi discloses wherein the light receiving element receives the light generated by each of the plurality of elements and wherein the light receiving element receives the light generated by at least two elements of the plurality of elements (para 0012, 15, 16, as the stage is driven, light generated by each of the plurality of elements are received and the width of the light receiving element is such that the light generated by at least two elements are received).
Claim(s) 33-35, 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Deguenther et al. as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Hayashi.
Regarding claim 33, Kobayashi does not disclose wherein the dimming member dims a part of the illumination light along sides of both ends of the spatial light modulator in the first direction. Hayashi discloses exposure device (Fig. 4, para 0030) that irradiates an object (30) with light from a spatial light modulator (DMD 10, para 0030) to expose the object, the exposure device comprising: an illumination unit (1) that illuminates the spatial light modulator with illumination light, wherein the illumination unit includes: an optical integrator (rod 3, para 0031) into which the illumination light enters; and a dimming member (aperture stop 6) that is disposed on an optical path between an emission surface of the optical integrator and the spatial light modulator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a dimming member which is an aperture stop which would dim a part of the illumination light along sides of both ends of the spatial light modulator in the first direction depending on the shape of the aperture opening and since an aperture stop controls the amount of light and manages exposure and improves sharpness.
Regarding claim 34, Kobayashi does not disclose wherein the dimming member includes a pair of dimming members, and wherein the pair of dimming members extend in a second direction different from the first direction and are disposed at a predetermined interval in the first direction. Hayashi discloses in Fig. 2, a dimming member of a field stop (4), which has a pair of dimming members instead of an aperture stop 6. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a field stop of Hayashi to the invention of Kobayashi in order to control the amount of light in two different direction depending on intended use.
Regarding claim 35, Kobayashi does not disclose wherein the dimming member is a light shielding member that shields a part of the illumination light. Hayashi discloses a light shielding member (aperture stop 6 and field stop 4 are both a light shielding members). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a dimming member which is an aperture stop to the invention of Kobayashi for the reason stated above.
Regarding claim 38, Kobayashi does not disclose wherein a lower surface of the dimming member is substantially parallel to a neutral plane including a center point of each of the plurality of elements. Hayashi discloses the dimming member of aperture stop 6, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the aperture stop 6 in Fig. 4 parallel to a neutral plane including a center point of each of the plurality of elements since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art and configuration of the filed stop or aperture stop is a matter of a design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the aperture stop of Hayashi rearranged to be parallel to the neutral plane of the plurality of elements since an aperture stop controls the amount of light and manages exposure and improves sharpness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shigematsu (2017/0108782) discloses an exposure device (Fig. 1) comprising an optical integrator (8, para 0033) and a spatial light modulator (para 0048 and claim 1). However, Shigematsu does not disclose the claimed dimming member. The spatial light modulator changes or forms an illumination distribution (claim 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER B KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, 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.
/PETER B KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 February 21, 2026