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) because they fail to show “offset 220”, “distance 222A”, and “distance 222B” as well as “ΔX” (in fact, there is no indication which direction is X) as described in para 00066 of the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
There are many issues with the specification. The following are some but not all of the issues. Applicant is respectfully requested to review the specification for other issues.
The paragraphs are randomly numbered. Some paragraphs have five digits, such as 00008 and some have four digits, such as 0008. The four-digit paragraphs seem to be placed randomly. For example, 0008 follows 00036, and 0028 follows 0008. Also, 0009 follows 0036 and 00037 follows 0012. Applicant is respectfully requested to correct this confusing issue.
The references “214”, “240A”, “240B” and “240C” in Fig. 2A are not disclosed.
In para 00049, “FIGS. 2A-G” seems to be a typo.
In para 00077, is it unclear what “different sets” is. What is a “set”?
In para 00082, “patterning operations may two sub-cycles” seems to be a typo or missing a word.
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 6, 14 and 19 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 claims 6, 14 and 19, it is not clear what a threshold thickness and a threshold DOF are. Is it referring to a minimum value or a maximum value? In order to expedite prosecution, it is assumed that a “threshold photo-resist thickness” refers to the thickness at which clean pattern profile can be formed, and it is assumed that a “threshold depth of focus” refers to a range of focus where the pattern can be printed correctly on the resist.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson (6,133,986).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses a method (Fig. 3, 31) comprising: causing a laser component (col. 6, lines 1-6) to perform a first set of a plurality of patterning operations in a pixel shape (11, DMD, col. 6, lines 4-6, col. 13, lines 58-60) on a substrate (12, col. 5, lines 1-3) at a first focal plane without offset (Fig. 31, col. 22, lines 43-47); and causing the laser component to perform a second set of the plurality of patterning operations in the pixel shape (11, DMD, col. 6, lines 4-6, col. 13, lines 58-60) on the substrate (12, col. 5, lines 1-3) at a second focal plane with a positive offset (Fig. 31, col. 22, lines 43-47).
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) 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (6,133,986).
Regarding claim 9, Johnson discloses a method (Fig. 3, 31) comprising: causing a laser component (col. 6, lines 1-6) to perform a first set of a plurality of patterning operations in a pixel shape (11, DMD, col. 6, lines 4-6, col. 13, lines 58-60) on a substrate (12, col. 5, lines 1-3) at a first focal plane without offset (Fig. 31, col. 22, lines 43-47); and causing the laser component to perform a second set of the plurality of patterning operations in the pixel shape (11, DMD, col. 6, lines 4-6, col. 13, lines 58-60) on the substrate (12, col. 5, lines 1-3) at a second focal plane with a positive offset (Fig. 31, col. 22, lines 43-47). Although Johnson does not disclose a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed cause a processing device to perform operations, Johnson discloses in Fig. 36 and col. 25, lines 37-20, a computer (106) that controls the operation or the method. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium storing instructions to be executed by the computer of Johnson in order to update the program or instructions easily.
Regarding claim 16, Johnson discloses a system comprising a processing device (computer 106, Fig. 36, col. 25, lines 37-20) to: cause a laser component to perform a first set of a plurality of patterning operations in a pixel shape (11, DMD, col. 6, lines 4-6, col. 13, lines 58-60) on a substrate (12, col. 5, lines 1-3) at a first focal plane without offset (Fig. 31, col. 22, lines 43-47); and cause the laser component to perform a second set of the plurality of patterning operations in the pixel shape (11, DMD, col. 6, lines 4-6, col. 13, lines 58-60) on the substrate (12, col. 5, lines 1-3) at a second focal plane with a positive offset (Fig. 31, col. 22, lines 43-47). Although Johnson does not disclose memory coupled to the processing device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide memory coupled to a processing device in order to easily access the instruction for the system to perform patterning operations.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Askebjer et al. (Askebjer) (2014/0053399).
Regarding claim 1, Askebjer discloses a method (Fig. 4) comprising causing a laser component (para 0043) to perform a first set of a plurality of patterning operations in a pixel shape (SLM, para 0043) on a substrate (substrate, para 0043) at a first focal plane without offset (Fig. 4, para 0043, “pattern on the substrate multiple times with different focus for each pass”); and causing the laser component to perform a second set of the plurality of patterning operations in the pixel shape on the substrate (para 0043) at a second focal plane with an offset (Fig. 4, para 0043, “pattern on the substrate multiple times with different focus for each pass”). Although Askebjer does not disclose the second focal plane with a positive offset, Askebjer discloses in para 0043 and 0044 that the substrate has large topography features or uneven workpiece with “first and second focal planes” and writing beams that target higher and lower positions on a surface of the uneven workpiece”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the second focal plane requires a positive offset depending on the topography of the substrate.
Regarding claim 9, Askebjer discloses a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (para 0128) storing instructions which, when executed cause a processing device to perform operations (Fig. 4) comprising: causing a laser component (para 0043) to perform a first set of a plurality of patterning operations in a pixel shape (SLM, para 0043) on a substrate (substrate, para 0043) at a first focal plane without offset (Fig. 4, para 0043, “pattern on the substrate multiple times with different focus for each pass”); and causing the laser component to perform a second set of the plurality of patterning operations in the pixel shape on the substrate (para 0043) at a second focal plane with an offset (Fig. 4, para 0043, “pattern on the substrate multiple times with different focus for each pass”). Although Askebjer does not disclose the second focal plane with a positive offset, Askebjer discloses in para 0043 and 0044 that the substrate has large topography features or uneven workpiece with “first and second focal planes” and writing beams that target higher and lower positions on a surface of the uneven workpiece”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the second focal plane requires a positive offset depending on the topography of the substrate.
Regarding claim 16, Askebjer discloses a system comprising: memory (para 0128, “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions executable by a processor”); and a processing (para 0128, “processor”) device coupled to the memory, the processing device to: cause a laser component (para 0043) to perform a first set of a plurality of patterning operations in a pixel shape (SLM, para 0043) on a substrate (para 0043) at a first focal plane without offset (Fig. 4, para 0043, “pattern on the substrate multiple times with different focus for each pass”); and cause the laser component to perform a second set of the plurality of patterning operations in the pixel shape on the substrate at a second focal plane with an offset (Fig. 4, para 0043, “pattern on the substrate multiple times with different focus for each pass”). Although Askebjer does not disclose the second focal plane with a positive offset, Askebjer discloses in para 0043 and 0044 that the substrate has large topography features or uneven workpiece with “first and second focal planes” and writing beams that target higher and lower positions on a surface of the uneven workpiece”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the second focal plane requires a positive offset depending on the topography of the substrate.
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 17, Askebjer discloses wherein: the plurality of patterning operations is a two-cycle exposure (para 0043, 0044, “multiple times” “first and second writing beams” “with first and second focal planes”). Although Askebjer does not disclose wherein the pixel shape is a rotated square pixel shape, providing the square pixel shape with different orientation such as being rotated requires only routine skill in the art, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a rotated square pixel shape to the invention of Askebjer on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, although Askebjer does not explicitly disclose a performing a third set of patterning operation in the pixel shape on the substrate at a third focal plane with a negative offset, Askebjer discloses in para 0043 writing the pattern on the substrate multiple time with different focus for each pass for substrate with large topography features. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a third set of patterning operation in the pixel shape at a third focal point with a negative offset depending on the topography of the substrate in order to increase the focal depth experienced by the resist on the substrate as taught by Askebjer in para 0043.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, although Askebjer does not explicitly disclose wherein: the positive offset is a first quantity of offset in a positive direction; and the negative offset is the first quantity of offset in a negative direction, Askebjer discloses in para 0043 writing the pattern on the substrate multiple time with different focus for each pass for substrate with large topography features. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the second patterning at a second focal plane with a positive offset which is a first quantity of offset in a positive direction and a third patterning at a third focal plane with a negative offset which is a first quantity of offset in a negative direction depending on the topography of the substrate in order to increase the focal depth experienced by the resist on the substrate as taught by Askebjer in para 0043.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, although Askebjer does not explicitly disclose wherein: the plurality of patterning operations is a three-cycle exposure; and the pixel shape is a rotated hexagon pixel shape, Askebjer discloses in para 0043 writing the pattern on the substrate multiple time with different focus for each pass for substrate with large topography features. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a three-cycle exposure depending on the topography of the substrate in order to increase the focal depth experienced by the resist on the substrate as taught by Askebjer in para 0043. Further, since providing the pixel shape of a rotated hexagon shape requires only routine skill in the art, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a rotated hexagon pixel shape to the invention of Askebjer on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 18, although Askebjer does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing device is further to cause the laser component to perform a third set of patterning operations in the pixel shape on the substrate at a third focal plane with a negative offset, wherein the positive offset is a first quantity of offset in a positive direction, the negative offset is the first quantity of offset in a negative direction, the plurality of patterning operations is a three-cycle exposure, and the pixel shape is a rotated hexagon pixel shape, Askebjer discloses in para 0043 writing the pattern on the substrate multiple time with different focus for each pass for substrate with large topography features. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a third set of patterning operations in the pixel shape on the substrate at a third focal plane with a negative offset, wherein the positive offset is a first quantity of offset in a positive direction, the negative offset is the first quantity of offset in a negative direction, the plurality of patterning operations is a three-cycle exposure depending on the topography of the substrate in order to increase the focal depth experienced by the resist on the substrate as taught by Askebjer in para 0043. Further, since providing the pixel shape of a rotated hexagon shape requires only routine skill in the art, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a rotated hexagon pixel shape to the invention of Askebjer on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claims 6, 14 and 19, although Askebjer does not explicitly disclose wherein the substrate has a threshold photo-resist layer thickness and a threshold depth of focus (DOF), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a substrate having a resist thickness where a clean pattern profile is formed and that the substrate has a DOF at which the pattern is correctly printed in order to manufacture functional devices.
Regarding claim 8, Askebjer discloses wherein the causing of the laser component to perform the second set of the plurality of patterning operations comprises applying the positive offset to a scan pitch of the laser component (para 0043, 0044).
Claim(s) 7, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Askebjer et al. as applied to claims 1, 9 and 16, respectively above, and further in view of Johnson.
Regarding claims 7, 15 and 20, the further difference between the modified Askebjer and the claimed invention is wherein the causing of the laser component to perform the first set of the plurality of patterning operations at the first focal plane is responsive to causing a piezo actuator to position the laser component in a first position associated with the first focal plane; and the causing of the laser component to perform the second set of the plurality of patterning operations at the second focal plane is responsive to causing the piezo actuator to position the laser component in a second position associated with the second focal plane. Askebjer discloses adjusting the focal plane in para 0043, 0044, but does not disclose using a piezo actuator. Johnson discloses in Fig. 31, 35a, 35b and col. 22, lines 43-47 microlenses 87 and 88 with their focal planes displaced and in col. 24, line 48 – col. 25, line 9 piezo actuators used to position the laser components at different focal points. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a piezo actuator to position the laser component for the first set of patterning operations at the first focal plane and a piezo actuator to position the laser component for the second set of patterning operations at the second focal plane because piezo actuators provide rapid adjustments with high precision.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhou et al. (2011/0222739) discloses patterning a test pattern at different focal plane to provide calibration parameters (para 0030, Fig. 1), but does not disclose patterning operation in a pixel shape.
Aoki et al. (2007/0165312) discloses deformable mirror (Fig. 3) for patterning at a first focal plane and at a second focal plane, but does not disclose a first patterning operation at a first focal plane without offset and a second patterning operation at a second focal plane with a positive offset.
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 August 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights