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 because the effective image fields “IF1, IF2” disclosed on line 14, page 16 is shown in Fig. 1, but not labeled. 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 numerous minor issues in the specification. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. The following are some of the issues, but they are not necessarily entirety of the minor issues in the specification.
On page 16, line 13, it is not clear what “16pprox..” is.
On page 17, line 5, it is not clear what “17pprox..” is.
On page 17, line 21, the field-shaping system is “FSF”, but in line 18 and in Fig. 3, it is “FFS”.
“BS1” and “BS2” in Fig. 3 is not disclosed in the specification.
On page 20, line 2, “second illumination beam SB2” is not shown in Fig. 3, but “BS2” is shown.
On page 21, line 4, it is not clear what “Fig. 7 ff” is since there is only Fig. 7 in the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the comma in “catadioptric projection, lens” seems to be a typo.
Regarding claim 1, the terms “the first intermediate image” and “the second intermediate image” are missing the word “real” before “intermediate”.
Regarding claim 4, “first second deflection unit” seems to be a typo.
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 4, 5 and 16-20 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.
Regarding claim 4, “a first reflection surface immediately following a second reflection surface” is unclear. The limitation “immediately following” is unclear. Does it mean the first reflection surface immediately follows the second reflection surface or that the second reflection surface is immediately following the first reflection surface? Without a comma after “following”, it can be interpreted that the first reflection surface immediately follows the second reflection surface. It is also unclear what “following” means, but it can be assumed that “following” means following the beam path from the object plane to the image plane. If that is the correct interpretation, the terminology is the opposite of that of the disclosure. In the specification, the second reflection surface follows the first reflection surface for both the first deflection unit ULE1 and the second deflection unit ULE2 (see Fig. 9 and 10). While applicant does not have to strictly adhere to the same terminology in the claims, but it does confuse the issue when the terminology in the claim is the opposite from the specification. However, later in the claim, the first reflection surface deflects radiation coming from the object plane and the second reflection surface deflects radiation from the first reflection surface to the image plane. Based on these limitation, it is assumed that the second reflection surface immediately follows the first reflection surface. Perhaps “a second reflection surface immediately following the first reflection surface” would be clearer.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is directed to ”the at least two-stage deflection unit comprises a first reflection surface and immediately following a second reflection surface; the first reflection surface is configured to deflect radiation coming from the object plane to the second reflection surface; the second reflection surface is configured to deflect radiation coming from the first reflection surface in the direction of the image plane”.
First, the limitation “immediately following” is unclear. Does it mean the first reflection surface immediately follows the second reflection surface or that the second reflection surface is immediately following the first reflection surface? Without a comma after “following”, it can be interpreted that the first reflection surface immediately follows the second reflection surface. It is also unclear what “following” means, but it can be assumed that “following” means following the beam path from the object plane to the image plane. If that is the correct interpretation, the terminology is the opposite of that of the disclosure. In the specification, the second reflection surface follows the first reflection surface for both the first deflection unit ULE1 and the second deflection unit ULE2 (see Fig. 9 and 10). While applicant does not have to strictly adhere to the same terminology in the claims, but it does confuse the issue when the terminology in the claim is the opposite from the specification. However, later in the claim, the first reflection surface deflects radiation coming from the object plane and the second reflection surface deflects radiation from the first reflection surface to the image plane. Based on these limitation, it is assumed that the second reflection surface immediately follows the first reflection surface. Perhaps “a second reflection surface immediately following the first reflection surface” would be clearer.
Second, if an assumption is made that the second reflection surface follows the first reflection surface, it is further unclear if the deflection unit is ULE1 or ULE2 in Fig. 2. The first reflection surface deflecting radiation coming from the object plane means the deflection unit is ULE1, but the second reflection surface deflecting radiation from the first reflection surface in the direction of the image plane means the deflection unit is ULE2. It is not clear which deflection unit is being claimed. If an assumption is made that the deflection unit is ULE1, it conflicts with the second reflection surface deflecting the radiation from the first surface in the direction of the image plane because the second reflection surface would direct the radiation in a direction perpendicular to the image plane. In order to expedite prosecution, it is assumed that “radiation coming from the object plane” includes the radiation reflected from the first lens part OP1 as well as the second lens part OP2.
Lastly, it is unclear what “a folding angle” is. The term is found in the specification but it is not defined. It is assumed that the tilt angle of the first reflection surface and the tilt of the second reflection surface add up to 90o.
The remaining claims, not specifically mentioned, are rejected for incorporating the defects from the base claim by dependency.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of copending Application No. 18/945626 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims are directed to:
A catadioptric projection lens (claim 15) comprising: a multiplicity of optical elements comprising lens elements and concave mirrors along an optical axis between an object plane of the catadioptric projection lens and an image plane of the catadioptric projection lens (claim 15, “the projection lens is a catadioptric projection lens which comprises a plurality of lens elements and concave mirrors between the object plane and the image plane along an optical axis of the projection lens”); the projection lens is a dual-field projection lens (claim 1, “dual-field illumination”) configured to image: i) a first effective object field outside the optical axis in the object plane along a first projection beam path into an effective image field outside the optical axis in the image plane; and ii) at the same time as i), a second effective object field outside the optical axis in the object plane along a second projection beam path into a second effective image field outside the optical axis in the image plane (claim 13, “i) the first illumination field along a first projection beam path into a first effective image field located outside the optical axis in an image plane; and ii) the second illumination field along a second projection beam path into a second effective image field located outside the optical axis in the image plane”), the second effective object field being opposite the first object field with respect to the optical axis (claim 1, “the second illumination beam being guidable along a second illumination beam path to a second illumination field outside the optical axis in the exit plane and opposite the first illumination field with respect to the optical axis”); each of the first and second projection beam paths comprises: i) a first deflection unit configured to deflect radiation coming from the object plane to a concave mirror (claim 16, “a first deflection unit configured to deflect the radiation coming from the object plane to a concave mirror”); and ii) a second deflection unit configured to deflect radiation coming from the concave mirror in the direction of the image plane (claim 16, “a second deflection unit configured to deflect the radiation coming from the concave mirror in a direction of the image plane”); the multiplicity of optical elements defines: i) a first lens part configured to image each of the first and second effective object fields into a corresponding first real intermediate image (claim 17, “a first lens part configured to image each of the first and second illumination fields into a first real intermediate image”); ii) for each of the first and second projection beam paths, a corresponding second lens part configured to generate a corresponding second real intermediate image with the radiation coming from the first lens part (claim 17, “a second lens part configured to generate a second real intermediate image with the radiation coming from the first lens part;”); and iii) a third lens part configured to image the second real intermediate image into the image plane (claim 17, “a third lens part configured to image the second real intermediate image into the image plane”); and for each of the first and second projection beam paths, a concave mirror is disposed in a region of a pupil surface between the first and second intermediate images; the first deflection unit is in an optical proximity of the first intermediate image; and the second deflection unit is in an optical proximity of the second intermediate image (claim 18, “the concave mirror is in a region of a pupil surface between the first and the second intermediate images, the first deflection unit is in an optical vicinity of the first intermediate image, and the second deflection unit is arranged in an optical vicinity of the second intermediate image”). Although the claim of the co-pending application is not directed to wherein: the image plane is parallel to the object plane, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the image plane parallel to the object plane in order to project the image while the both the image plane and the object plane are moved in parallel directions.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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) 16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato et al. (Kato) (2006/0082904).
Regarding claim 16, Kato discloses a catadioptric projection lens (Fig. 1, 5), comprising: a multiplicity of optical elements comprising a plurality of lens elements (L1, DB1, DB2, L3) and a concave mirror (M) between the object plane (101) and the image plane (102) along an optical axis (AX1) to image an effective object field outside the optical axis in the object plane along a projection beam path into an effective image field outside the optical axis in the image plane (para 0028-0032), wherein: an at least two-stage deflection unit is in the projection beam path; the at least two-stage deflection unit comprises a first reflection surface (FM1) and immediately following a second reflection surface (FM2); the first reflection surface is configured to deflect radiation coming from the object plane to the second reflection surface (Fig. 1, 5, para 0034-0035); the second reflection surface is configured to deflect radiation coming from the first reflection surface in the direction of the image plane (Fig. 1, 5) so that the first reflection surface and the second reflection surface define a folding angle of 90° (para 0035).
Regarding claim 19, Kato discloses an apparatus, comprising: the projection lens of claim 16; and an illumination system configured to the effective object field, wherein the apparatus is a microlithography projection exposure apparatus (Fig. 9, para 0001, 0002, 0028).
Regarding claim 20, Kato discloses a method of using a microlithography projection exposure apparatus comprising an illumination system (210, Fig. 9) and a projection lens (Fig. 1, 5), the method comprising: using the illumination system to illuminate an effective object fields of the projection lens; and using the projection lens to project the effective object field into an effective image field, wherein the projection lens comprises a projection lens according to claim 16 (Fig. 1, 5, 9, para 0028-0032, 0115-0123).
Claim(s) 16, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Epple et al. (Epple) (2013/0120728).
Regarding claim 16, Epple discloses a catadioptric projection lens (Fig. 23), comprising: a multiplicity of optical elements comprising a plurality of lens elements (FLG, RLG) and a concave mirror (M3-2) between the object plane (OS) and the image plane (IS, not labeled in Fig. 23 but see Fig. 22) along an optical axis (OA) to image an effective object field outside the optical axis in the object plane along a projection beam path into an effective image field outside the optical axis in the image plane (para 0145, a double-channel catadioptric projection objective with fields OF1, OF2), wherein: an at least two-stage deflection unit is in the projection beam path; the at least two-stage deflection unit comprises a first reflection surface (M1-2) and immediately following a second reflection surface (M2-1); the first reflection surface is configured to deflect radiation coming from the object plane to the second reflection surface; the second reflection surface is configured to deflect radiation coming from the first reflection surface in the direction of the image plane so that the first reflection surface and the second reflection surface define a folding angle of 90° (Fig. 23, para 0144-0146).
Regarding claim 17, Epple discloses wherein: a first deflection unit (M1-1, M2-1) is configured to deflect the radiation coming from the object plane to the concave mirror (M3-1); and a second deflection unit (M4-1) is configured to deflect the radiation coming from the concave mirror in the direction of the image plane; and the first deflection unit is a two-stage reflective deflection unit (M1-1, M2-1) and/or the second deflection unit is a two-stage reflective deflection unit.
Regarding claim 19, Kato discloses an apparatus, comprising: the projection lens of claim 16; and an illumination system configured to the effective object field, wherein the apparatus is a microlithography projection exposure apparatus (Fig. 23, para 0022, 0146).
Regarding claim 20, Kato discloses a method of using a microlithography projection exposure apparatus comprising an illumination system (inherent to Fig. 23) and a projection lens (Fig. 23), the method comprising: using the illumination system to illuminate an effective object fields of the projection lens; and using the projection lens to project the effective object field into an effective image field, wherein the projection lens comprises a projection lens according to claim 16 (Fig. 23, para 0144-0146).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection is overcome.
Regarding claim 1, Williamson et al. (Williamson) (2010/0053738) disclose a catadioptric projection lens (Fig. 1) comprising: a multiplicity of optical elements comprising lens elements (106, Arm 1, Arm 2) and concave mirrors (114) along an optical axis between an object plane (102) of the catadioptric projection lens and an image plane (104) of the catadioptric projection lens (para 0030), wherein: the image plane is parallel to the object plane (Fig 1); the projection lens is a dual-field projection lens configured to image: i) a first effective object field outside (1, Fig. 1a) the optical axis in the object plane along a first projection beam path (left side in Fig. 1) into an effective image field outside the optical axis in the image plane; and ii) at the same time as i), a second effective object field (2, Fig. 1a) outside the optical axis in the object plane along a second projection beam path (right side in Fig. 1) into a second effective image field outside the optical axis in the image plane, the second effective object field being opposite the first object field with respect to the optical axis (para 0029, although the entire reticle pattern is imaged, but there will be instances when the first slit and the second slit are outside the optical axis and their images will be outside the optical axis); each of the first and second projection beam paths comprises: i) a first deflection unit (110, 112) configured to deflect radiation coming from the object plane to a concave mirror; the multiplicity of optical elements defines: i) a first lens part (106) configured to image each of the first and second effective object fields into a corresponding first real intermediate image (1st intermediate image, Fig. 3); ii) for each of the first and second projection beam paths, a corresponding second lens part (lens 23-41 in Fig. 3) configured to generate a corresponding second real intermediate image (2nd intermediate image, Fig. 3) with the radiation coming from the first lens part; and iii) a third lens part configured to image the second real intermediate image into the image plane (lens 59-90, Fig. 3); and for each of the first and second projection beam paths, a concave mirror (114) is disposed in a region of a pupil surface between the first and second intermediate images; the first deflection unit is in an optical proximity of the first intermediate image; and the second deflection unit is in an optical proximity of the second intermediate image (Fig. 1).
However, Williamson does not disclose “ii) a second deflection unit configured to deflect radiation coming from the concave mirror in the direction of the image plane”. Williamson discloses the plane mirror 112 directing radiation to the concave mirror, but the radiation from the concave mirror is directed to a plurality of lenses and not directed by a second deflection unit.
Claims 2, 3, and 6-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims since none of the claims of the copending application, 18/945626 are directed to the subject matter of claims 2, 3, and 6-15.
Claims 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 18, the second deflection unit (M4-1) of Epple et al. is not a plane mirror but a convex mirror (Fig. 23, para 0144).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Epple et al. (Epple) (2011/0075121) discloses a catadioptric projection lens (Fig. 1) comprising an object plane (5), an image plane (9), a plurality of lens (Fig. 1) and a concave mirror (21), a deflection unit (27) to deflect radiation to a concave mirror and a second deflection unit (29) to deflect ration to the image plane. However, Epple does not disclose a dual-field projection lens and only discloses one effective object field. Epple also does not disclose a two-stage deflection unit comprising a first reflection surface and a second reflection surface immediately following the first reflection surface.
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 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights