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 . 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 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. There are a total of 20 claims and claims 27-46 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/10/2025 and 05/16/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 27, 28, 30,31,32,34-38, 40-42 and 44-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki et al. (US 2011/0242312 A1) in view of Markle et al.(US 2016/0085156 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Seki discloses an optical scanning system for imaging a moving substrate([para 0123-0124]- an optical scan is performed to capture a differential interference contrast image of the epitaxial layer surface), comprising: a stage to move along an axis([para 0053 and 0056]- stage 17 is comprised of an XY stage which can move in the X-direction and Y-direction. The position information of the stage is detected by a position sensor 19, then the position information of the stage is supplied to the processor 11. When scanning the entire surface of the SiC substrate 18 to detect defects), wherein said stage supports a substrate comprising a plurality of fields([para 0109]- The 3D image forming means 50 moves the object lens in the optical axis direction while detecting the position in the optical axis direction giving the maximum luminance value for each pixel of the plurality of 2D confocal images captured and obtaining 3D image information which shows a 3D image of the SiC substrate surface) and a detector in optical communication with said field of said plurality of fields through said optical path([abstract]- The differential interference contrast image of the surface of the Sic substrate is supplied to the defect detection means in order to detect the defects formed in the substrate. The image of the detected defect is supplied to the defect classification means (36) to classify the type of the defect based on the shape and luminance distribution of the defect image); wherein said detector captures an image of said field of said plurality of fields with a pixel smear of up to about 3 pixels([para 0029]- a micropipe defect is a defect of the form of a hollow hole and is captured on a differential interference contrast image as a spot-shaped low luminance image. Therefore, when a spot-shaped low luminance image is detected, if capturing the surface contour image; examiner considers contract image as smear image as explained in specification of para 0004 a blurry image (e.g., with a pixel smear of -+/-3 pixels)).
However, Seki does not explicitly disclose a scanning mirror mounted along an optical path, wherein said scanning mirror scans a field of said plurality of fields of said substrate; and a detector in optical communication with said field of said plurality of fields through said optical path, wherein said detector captures an image of said field of said plurality of fields with a pixel smear of up to about 3 pixels.
In an analogous art, Markle discloses a scanning mirror mounted along an optical path([see in Fig. 2D and 3A-3B]- a resonant scanning mirror 70 located between the image transducer and the substrate, wherein the resonant scanning mirror is configured for angular movement that scans the transducer images), wherein said scanning mirror scans a field of said plurality of fields of said substrate([see in Fig. 2D and 3A-3B and para 0018]- a substrate stage that operably supports the substrate in the second image plane and that moves the substrate under the objective lens in a direction while maintaining the substrate substantially in the second image plane; a resonant scanning mirror located between the image transducer and the substrate, wherein the resonant scanning mirror is configured for angular movement that scans the transducer images in the direction of the substrate movement). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Karkle to the modified system of Seki an mage motion compensation systems and methods for a maskless digital lithography system to lengthen the maximum single frame exposure time and reduce the number of frames requiring the same parts of the pattern. This would result in a more efficient use of the illumination light and a higher throughput [Markle; para 006-0007].
Regarding claim 28, Karkle discloses wherein a scan path of said scanning mirror scan is adjusted based on a feed-forward velocity tracking of said stage([para 0018]- a resonant scanning mirror located between the image transducer and the substrate, wherein the resonant scanning mirror is configured for angular movement that scans the transducer images in the direction of the substrate movement. Thus, scanning mirror and the movement of the substrate so that exposure patterns formed on the moving substrate have an amount of smearing that is one third of a pixel image or less).
Regarding claim 30, Karkle discloses further comprising a first electrical motor coupled to said scanning mirror, wherein said scanning mirror scans said field of said plurality of fields when actuated by said first electrical motor([para 0018]- a resonant scanning mirror located between the image transducer and the substrate, wherein the resonant scanning mirror is configured for angular movement that scans the transducer images in the direction of the substrate movement).
Regarding claim 31, Karkle discloses further comprising an objective lens, wherein said objective lens is moved along said optical path, and wherein a movement of said objective lens is a function of a movement of said field out of a focal plane of said objective lens([para 0018 and 0020]- an objective lens arranged to receive the modulated illumination from the at least one transducer and form in the resist layer images of the transducer patterns at a second image plane, thereby forming exposure patterns in the resist layer; a substrate stage that operably supports the substrate in the second image plane and that moves the substrate under the objective lens in a direction while maintaining the substrate substantially in the second image plane).
Regarding claim 32, Karkle discloses wherein said scan of said scanning mirror is a function of a velocity fluctuation of said movement of said stage along said axis([para 0018 and 0032]- a resonant scanning mirror located between the image transducer and the substrate, wherein the resonant scanning mirror is configured for angular movement that scans the transducer images in the direction of the substrate movement; and a controller operably connected to the at least one image transducer, the scanning mirror).
Regarding claim 34, Karkle discloses further comprising a light source optically coupled to said optical path, said scanning mirror, said substrate, or any combination thereof([see in Fig. 2C]- FIG. 2C is a close-up schematic optical diagram of a hypothetical imaging system illustrating how a scanning mirror 70 deflects light beam 28 (solid, dashed and dotted lines) so the beam scans over the substrate plane such that the image formed on the substrate 92).
Regarding claim 35, Karkle discloses wherein a velocity of said substrate or said stage for a first field of said plurality of fields is used to provide a correction term to said scan of said scanning mirror for a second field of said plurality of fields([para 0016 and 0098]- a function of angle, showing the ideal change in scan angle as a solid line, the sine relationship as a dashed line, and the difference as a dotted line, wherein by limiting the useful scan angle range and by carefully choosing the substrate velocity and the maximum scan amplitude).
Regarding claim 36, Karkle discloses wherein said first field is adjacent to said second field([see in Fig. 2D]- a first object plane OP1 of the telecentric relay 40, while the surface 52 of DMD 50 lies at a first image plane IP1 of the telecentric relay. The objective lens 80 and field lens 84 define a second object plane OP2 at the surface 52 of DMD 50).
Regarding claim 37, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 27. Hence; all limitations for claim 37 have been met in system claim 27.
Regarding claim 38, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 28.
Regarding claim 40, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 30.
Regarding claim 41, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 31.
Regarding claim 42, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 32.
Regarding claim 44, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 34.
Regarding claim 45, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 35.
Regarding claim 46, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 36.
Claims 29, 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki in view of Markle as applied to claim 27 and further in view of Noji et al.( US 2005/0045821 A1).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Seki and Markle do not explicitly disclose wherein said feed-forward velocity tracking tracks changes in a velocity of said stage in less than about 100 milliseconds.
In an analogous art, Noji discloses wherein said feed-forward velocity tracking tracks changes in a velocity of said stage in less than about 100 milliseconds([para 0971]- An X-Y stage controller 96.cndot.17 collectively controls these devices, thereby enabling the stage to be moved two-dimensionally, achieves accuracy of 1000 .mu.m to 1 nm, preferably 100 .mu.m to 2 nm, more preferably 1 .mu.m to 2 nm, further more preferably 0.1 .mu.m to 2 nm, and achieves a performance such that the response time is several thousands of milliseconds or less). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Noji to the modified system of Seki and Karkle for guiding to a detector electrons obtaining information about the surface of the above described sample by the irradiation of the electron beam to the above described sample, and means for synthesizing as an image the electrons being guided to the detector and obtaining information [Noji; para 0003].
Regarding claim 39, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 29.
Claims 33, 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki in view of Markle as applied to claim 27 and further in view of Okada et al.( US 2012/0212791 A1).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Seki and Markle do not explicitly disclose further comprising a filter provided in said optical path, wherein said filter reduces a transmission of light to said detector.
In an analogous art, Okada discloses further comprising a filter provided in said optical path, wherein said filter reduces a transmission of light to said detector([claim 4]- the two-dimensional optical scanner and transmits light having a wavelength in a predetermined range, wherein the wavelength selection filter reduces a bandwidth of the laser beam). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Okada to the modified system of Seki and Karkle a technique of a two-dimensional optical scanner and a light stimulus apparatus including an acousto-optical deflector (AOD) to stimulate plurality of separate regions without stimulating other regions by discontinuously changing the irradiated position [Okada; para 0007 ].
Regarding claim 43, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 33.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art are made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
1. KATOU et al., US 2018/0007325A1, discloses an optical module and a scan-type image projection display device.
2. Staker et. al., US 2014/0152888 A1, discloses Object detection method.
3. Staker et al., US 2014/0152793 A1, discloses high-speed, high resolution imaging of biochemical materials in planar arrays.
4. Hudman et al., US 2010/0245957 A1, discloses a scanning beam display systems that utilize two scanning mirrors.
5. Cho et al., US 2007/0053035 A1, discloses a mirror package scanning apparatus having a simple structure and capable of two-dimensional scanning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD NAZMUL HAQUE whose telephone number is (571)272-5328. The examiner can normally be reached IFW.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at 5712727327. 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.
/MD N HAQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487