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 § 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 1-20 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.
With respect to claims 1, 11 and 16, the claims recite “a first optical path length corresponding to the DMD” and “a second optical path length corresponding to the imaging device”. However, the claims fail to specify: the starting point and ending point of each optical path length; whether the optical path length is a geometric distance or an optical distance (e.g., refractive-index-weighted length); whether the optical path includes reflections from mirrors or prisms and whether the optical path length corresponds to an illumination path, an imaging path or both. Because the claims do not define how the optical path length is determined, the scope of the claims cannot be reasonably ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Further the term “unequal” is a relative term that lacks an objective standard or threshold for determining when the optical path lengths are considered unequal. The claims fail to specify: a minimum or maximum difference; a functional threshold or any measurement criterion for determining inequality.
As to claims 6, 14, 16 and 18, the phrase “mitigates a Moire effect” recites a result without reciting the structure or steps necessary to achieve that result, rendering the scope of the claims unclear. It is unclear how the Moire effect is detected; How mitigation is measured. Please explain.
For the purposes of examination, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art. The phrase “optical path length corresponding to the DMD” is interpreted as the distance travelled by light along the illumination path that includes the DMD, and the phrase “optical path length corresponding to the imaging device” is interpreted as the distance travelled by light along the imaging path between the substrate and the imaging device”. The term “unequal” is interpreted broadly to mean that the two optical path lengths are not identical. The term “mitigate a Moire effect” is interpreted broadly to encompass any reduction, suppression, or avoidance of visible Moire artifacts in the captured image, without requiring a particular degrees of reduction or a specific method for achieving such mitigation. The Applicant is remined that this interpretation is made for the purpose of examination and is not intended to import limitations from the specification into the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Lian et al (US 2024/0184215).
PNG
media_image1.png
460
379
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 1, 11 and 16, Lian discloses a digital lithography system comprising all feature of the instant claims such as: a first light source (11 or SO) configured to emit light beam along an optical path toward a substrate (W) via one or more optical element (see figures 5 or 6); a digital micro-micro device (DMD or SM) configured to receive the light beam and formed an output light beam wherein the output light beam is emitted along the optical path toward the substrate (W) and an imaging device (DET or 23) configured to capture an image of the substrate illumination at least in part by the light beam, wherein a first optical path length corresponding to the DMD (SM ) and a second optical path length corresponding to the imaging device (DET or 23) are unequal.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (U.S.Pat. 11,965,835) in view of Manassen et al (U.S.Pat. 9,182,219 B1).
With respect to claims 1, 11 and 16, Liu discloses a lithography system comprising: a first light source (101) configured to emit a light beam along an optical path (104) toward a substrate (114) via one or more optical elements (105-118);
PNG
media_image2.png
378
474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a structured mask (107) configured to receive the light beam and form an output light beam, wherein the output light beam is emitted along the optical path toward the substrate; and an imaging device (102) configured to capture an image of the substrate (114) illuminated at least in part by the light beam, wherein a first optical path length corresponding to the structured mask and a second optical path length corresponding to the imaging device are unequal.
As to claim 2, wherein the one or more optical elements has at least one movable lens (109; 118) configured to focus the light beam onto the substrate and further configured to focus the image of the substrate.
As to claims 3 and 10, 12-13, 15, 17-18, an actuator (see col.5, lines 5-6) configured to move the at least one movable lens between the first position and a second position, wherein when the lens is in the first position the light beam is focused on the substrate (114) and wherein when the lens is in the second position the image of the substrate is focused (see col.5, lines 5-19).
As to claim 4, a controller (103) configured to receive the capture image of the substrate; determine whether the captured image of the substrate is in focus and cause the at least one movable lens (109; 118) to move responsive to determining the captured image of the substrate is not in focus.
As to claim 5, wherein the at least one movable lens (109, 118) has at least one of an optical lens, a spherical lens or an aspherical lens (see figure 1, reproduced above).
As to claims 8 and 19, a second light source (an inherent element of the imaging device 102) disposed proximate the substrate, wherein the second light source is configured to further illuminate the substrate (see figure 1).
As to claims 9 and 20, the substrate (114) has at least one of glass, a reflective material, a metal, a chrome, a polymer, a crystal or an oxide (see col.5, lines 15-24).
Thus, Liu discloses substantially all limitations of the instant claims. Liu does not expressly disclose the structured mask (107) being a digital-micro-micro device (DMD). However, this feature is well known in the art. For example, Manassen discloses a digital lithography system for overlay measurement based on Moire effect between structured illumination (light source) and overlay target (substrate) and having a digital micro-mirror device (DMD) (see col.4, lines 38-45). In view of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Liu and Manassen to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the mentioned claims. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to employ the digital micro-mirror device (DMD) as suggested by Manassen into the lithography system of Liu for the purpose of generating any desired patterns and improving the quality of the lithography system.
As to claims 6 and 14, Manassen teaches adjusting illumination grid relative to target grid, the Moire pattern changes which implies mitigation or manipulation of Moire effects (see abstract). In view of teachings, it would have been obvious to adjust the first optical path and the second optical path of the lithography system of Liu, as suggested by Manassen to mitigates a Moire effect and thereby improving the quality of the printed images on the substrate.
As to claim 7, Liu as modified by Manassen, lacks to show a first prism configured to direct the light beam along the optical path toward the DMD and a second prism configured to pass the output light along the optical path toward the substrate, as recited in the claim. However, Liu clearly suggests that “the system 110 may include a number of other refractive and/or reflective optical elements...thus, the system 110 may include any other suitable optical elements” (see col.5, lines 33-40). In view of such teachings, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to utilize a first prism and a second prism for the purpose of directing the light beam along the optical path toward to the substrate and respectively directing the output light beam along the optical path toward the substrate and directing light reflected from the substrate toward the imaging device and thereby improving the quality of the lithography system, as intended.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Swillam et al (U.S.Pat. 12,306,541); Van Der Zouw et al (U.S.Pat. 2018/0088347 A1) have been cited for teaching digital lithography systems and each of which comprises substantially all limitations of the instant claims of the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG HENRY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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 Minh 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.
HUNG HENRY NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2882
HVN
2/1/26
/HUNG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882