DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 37-44 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirata et al. [US 2020/0271920].
For claims 37, 38, and 51, Hirata teaches a method for forming (see Fig. 15) an assembly (see Fig. 1 and 8), the assembly comprising:
a mirror (1); and
one or more deformable members (drive cantilevers 3i), a first end of that defines a support portion (fixed portions 4i) and a second end of that is attached either directly or indirectly to the mirror (support cantilevers 2i);
wherein each of the one or more deformable members comprises a first actuator (piezoelectric elements 5i-a) and a second actuator (piezoelectric elements 5i-b);
wherein the first and second actuators are independently addressable (voltage applied to different piezo elements 5i, see Figs. 8-12);
wherein actuation of the first actuator moves the mirror relative to the support portion in a first direction and wherein actuation of the second actuator moves the mirror relative to the support portion in a second direction that is opposite to the first direction (phase difference of voltage applied to 5i-a and 5i-b results in opposite rotation of the mirror, see Fig. 9);
wherein each deformable member comprises a structural frame (3i) configured to support an active portion (a piezoelectric thin film 13, see Fig. 15) of each of the first and second actuators, an active layer (a piezoelectric thin film 13, see Fig. 15) disposed on a surface, and
wherein each structural frame comprises an array of two or more generally mutually parallel beam portions, pairs of adjacent beam portions are connected together at one end, wherein each beam portion is only connected to one adjacent beam portion at any given end (beam portions connected at the bend portion of deformable elements 3i), wherein at least one of the first and second actuators comprises at least one actuator portion, wherein each such actuator portion comprises:
a flexible member and an active layer (a piezoelectric thin film 13, see Fig. 15) disposed on a surface of the flexible member (cantilevers 3, see Fig. 15) and operable to distort the flexible member.
For claim 39, Hirata teaches the active layers of the actuator portions of the first and second actuators are disposed on the same side of the structural frame (the arrangement as shown in Figs. 8 and 15).
For claim 40, Hirata teaches each active layer is configurable in at least a first, nominal state and a second, actuated state (electrodes set ground state or voltage applied, see [0069]).
For claim 41, Hirata teaches each active layer comprises a piezoelectric material (piezoelectric thin film 13, see Fig. 15).
For claim 42, Hirata teaches the assembly comprises a plurality of deformable members, the second end of at least two of the plurality of deformable members is attached to a different part of the mirror (plurality of cantilevers 3i, see Figs. 1 and 8).
For claim 43, Hirata teaches the assembly comprises four deformable members (four cantilevers 3i, see Figs. 1 and 8).
For claim 44, Hirata teaches the four deformable members are arranged in a 4th order rotationally symmetric layout (90° rotational symmetry, see [0065]).
Claims 52 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aimono [US 2012/0224239].
For claims 37 and 38, Aimono teaches an assembly (see Fig. 1) comprising: a mirror (1); and one or more deformable members (torsion bars 3a and 3b), a first end of that defines a support portion (portion connected to body 5) and a second end of that is attached either directly or indirectly to the mirror (portion connected to frame 2); wherein each of the one or more deformable members comprises a first actuator (odd numbered actuators 6x) and a second actuator (even numbered actuators 6x); wherein the first and second actuators are independently addressable (independent drive voltages, see [0046]-[0047]); wherein actuation of the first actuator moves the mirror relative to the support portion in a first direction and wherein actuation of the second actuator moves the mirror relative to the support portion in a second direction that is opposite to the first direction (mirror rock about the Y axis, see Fig. 3 and [0062]); wherein each deformable member comprises a structural frame (torsion bars 3a and 3b are constructed by the intermediate silicon oxide layer 202, the monocrystalline silicon active layer 203 and the silicon oxide layer 204, see Fig. 2 and [0054]) configured to support an active portion (206, see [0055]) of each of the first and second actuators, and wherein each structural frame comprises an array of two or more generally mutually parallel beam portions, pairs of adjacent beam portions are connected together at one end, wherein each beam portion is only connected to one adjacent beam portion at any given end (arrangement of the serially connected cantilever portions shown in Fig. 1), wherein at least one of the first and second actuators comprises at least one actuator portion, wherein each such actuator portion comprises: a flexible member (flexing portion of the bar 3 in contact with and supporting the actuators 6x) and an active layer (206) disposed on a surface of the flexible member and operable to distort the flexible member.
For claim 52, Aimono teaches the first actuator comprises a first set of one or more actuator portions provided by a first set of the beam portions (odd numbered actuators 6x, see [0062]), and wherein no two beam portions of the first set are adjacent to one another (see Fig. 1).
For claim 53, Aimono teaches the second actuator comprises a second set of one or more actuator portions provided by a second set of the beam portions comprising the remaining beam portions (even numbered actuators 6x, see [0062]), and wherein each actuator portion comprises the respective beam portion and an active layer disposed on a surface of that beam portion and operable to distort that beam portion (layer 206 on the bar portion, see Fig. 2 and [0054]-[0055]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 45-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata in view of Haspeslagh et al. [WO 2021/032483, provided by the Applicant].
For claims 45 and 46, Hirata fails to teach each deformable member attaches to the mirror by means of one or more pillars, wherein each pillar is formed from a material with a thermal resistance that is high compared to a thermal resistance of the deformable member that it connects to the mirror.
Haspeslagh teaches each deformable member attaches to the mirror by means of one or more pillars (mirror connected to actuator via pillars 24, 302, see Figs. 2 and 3), wherein each pillar is formed from a material with a thermal resistance that is high compared to a thermal resistance of the deformable member that it connects to the mirror (pillar 303 comprises layers of silicon, germanium, aluminum and oxide having a combined thickness of 151 pm. The oxide layer 304 has a thickness of 1 pm and provides both thermal and electrical insulation to protect the piezoelectric actuator 302, see [0054], flexible material 305 by a layer of nitride (SiN), see [0055], the metal oxides have higher resistance to thermal transfer than silicon nitride).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pillar with thermal resistance as taught by Haspeslagh in the support for the mirror as taught by Hirata in order to protect the actuators from radiation that may be absorbed by the mirror.
For claims 47-50, Hirata teaches the assembly of claim 37, a power supply (62, see Fig. 1); and a control system (61), the control system operable to supply control signals using the power supply to the first and second actuators (5i-a and 5i-b); but fails to teach an inspection and/or metrology or photolithography apparatus comprising the programmable illuminator comprising: a micromirror array having a substrate and a plurality of assemblies of claim 37, wherein the support portion of each of the one or more deformable members of each of the plurality of assemblies are connected to the substrate; a power supply; and a control system, the control system operable to supply control signals using the power supply to the first and second actuators of the one or more deformable members of each of the plurality of assemblies so as to control the orientation of the mirrors of the plurality of assemblies.
Haspeslagh teaches an inspection and/or metrology or photolithography apparatus comprising a programmable illuminator comprising: a micromirror array (micromirror array is a programmable illuminator IL of photolithography apparatus, see [00032], programmable illuminator 140, see [00045]) having a substrate (underlying substrate, see [00051])) and a plurality of assemblies (MEMS with mirror part of the micromirror array, see [00051]), wherein the support portion of each of the one or more deformable members of each of the plurality of assemblies are connected to the substrate; a power supply; and a control system, the control system operable to supply control signals using the power supply to the first and second actuators of the one or more deformable members of each of the plurality of assemblies so as to control the orientation of the mirrors of the plurality of assemblies (each mirror may be provided with one or more control unit, generate control voltages for one or more piezoelectric actuators of the mirror based on control information additionally contained in the control signal, see [00060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the assembly as taught by Hirata in an apparatus with micromirror array as taught by Haspeslagh in order to provide greater variation in tilt angle of the mirrors to increase variation in the illumination modes to accommodate different patterns for exposure and/or measurement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 9-10 of the Remarks, regarding claim 37, that Hirata fails to describe the first actuator and the second actuator are independently addressable because the configuration does not describe a situation where one of the actuators is energized while another is not and that a single power supply is provided for each cantilever.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s narrow understanding of the phrase independently addressable in product claim that limits only a mirror and the deformable members. As is clear from Fig. 8, V1(1) and V1(2) are two separate and distinct application pathways that are independent from each other. A voltage applied to one is not applied to the other. The actuators are independently addressable because neither receives the same signal and both are addressed by different independent voltage signals.
The Applicant argues on pages 10-11 of the Remarks, regarding claim 37, that Hirata fails to describe the claimed opposite direction actuation where actuating one element group to move the mirror in a first direction while the other element group remains unactuated, or actuating the other element group to move the mirror in the opposite direction.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s narrow interpretation of the claimed opposite direction actuation. In particular, the claim is not limited and does not require the when one actuator is energized that the other actuator is not. In Fig. 9, both actuators are actuated to rotate the mirror in one direction at time t1 and then at time t3 both actuators are actuated by application of a voltage with an inverse polarity to rotate the mirror in the opposite. In the first instance the first actuator is actuated to rotate the mirror in one direction and in the second instance the second actuator is actuated to rotate the mirror in an opposite direction.
The Applicant argues on pages 11-13 of the Remarks, regarding claim 37, that mapping both the structural frame and the actuators’ active material to the same physical elements is inconsistent because there is no showing of two distinct actuators by mapping the thin film 13 and actuators to the same material, and the flexible member of the actuator is mapped to the cantilever 3i.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion. As identified above, drive cantilevers 3-i support the piezoelectric elements 5-i, each of the piezoelectric elements 5-i comprise active piezoelectric thin films 13. Elements 5i-a and 5i-b are two independent elements that are both an actuator and a piezoelectric material that are supported on the structure of the cantilever. The cantilever portion that is flexible effects the relative movement of the mirror and is therefore consistent with the interpretation of the structural frame and the actuators. Applicant is directed to their own disclosure at paragraphs [000122] and [000126] of the specification: the structural frame 41 comprises a first beam portion 42 and a second beam portion 43; each of the first and second beam portions 42, 43 may be considered to be a flexible member.
The Applicant argues on pages 13 and 14 of the Remarks, regarding claims 47-50, that the combination would change the principle of operation of Hirata because the AC voltage drive supply would have to be changed to accommodate the mirror array requirements of Haspeslagh.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the combination, Haspeslagh incorporates the features of the mirror assembly and not the AC actuation arrangement. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the piezo actuator arrangement as taught by Hirata would be actuatable by applying suitable voltage polarity to provide the desired deformation in a manner similar to the control of the piezo actuator as taught by Haspeslagh in [00051].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Steven H Whitesell/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights