Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/388,926

TEMPERATURE SENSING PROBE, BURL PLATE, LITHOGRAPHIC APPARATUS AND METHOD

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jul 29, 2021
Examiner
WHITTINGTON, KENNETH
Art Unit
3992
Tech Center
3900
Assignee
ASML Netherlands B.V.
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
54%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
298 granted / 420 resolved
+11.0% vs TC avg
Minimal -17% lift
Without
With
+-16.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
453
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
31.5%
-8.5% vs TC avg
§102
27.6%
-12.4% vs TC avg
§112
17.7%
-22.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 420 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION This non-final office action addresses U.S. Application No. 17/388,926, which is a broadening reissue application of U.S. Reissue Application No. 13/488,111 (hereinafter the “111 Application"), entitled TEMPERATURE SENSING PROBE, BURL PLATE, LITHOGRAPHIC APPARLATUS AND METHOD, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,141,005 (hereinafter the “005 Patent") on September 22, 2015. The status of the claims is as follows: Claims 21-40 are pending and examined. Claims 21-37 are rejected. Claims 38-40 are allowed. I. CONTINUED EXAMINATION A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. §1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. §1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. §1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. §1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the Final Office action mailed September 16, 2025 (hereinafter the “2025 Final”) has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's amendment filed on March 10, 2026 (hereinafter the “Mar 2026 Amendment”) has been entered. II. STATUS OF CLAIMS AND APPLICATION In the Mar 2026 Amendment, patent claims 1-20 were cancelled and new claims 21-40 were added. Of these new claims, claims 21, 30 and 38 have been amended in the Mar 2026 Amendment with respect to the previous versions of these claims. Thus, claims 21-40 are pending and will be examined. In response to the amendments to the claims and the remarks in the Mar 2026 Amendment, except for the double patenting rejections below, all other objections and rejections provided in the 2025 Final are withdrawn. III. PRIORITY Examiners acknowledge that the present application is a reissue of the 111 Application/005 Patent. Examiners further acknowledge that the present reissue application is a continuation reissue of U.S. Application Serial No. 15/711,901 (hereinafter the “901 Reissue Application”), which issued as U.S. Patent No. RE48,668 (hereinafter the “RE48668 Patent”). Examiners further acknowledge the claim of priority to U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 61/493,796, filed on June 6, 2011. IV. CLAIM INTERPRETATION After careful review of the original specification, the prosecution history, and unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiners, the Examiners find that they are unable to locate any lexicographic definitions (either express or implied) with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision with regard to pending and examined claims. Because the Examiners are unable to locate any lexicographic definitions with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision, the Examiners conclude that Applicant is not his own lexicographer for the pending and examined claims. See MPEP §2111.01(IV). The Examiners further find that because the pending and examined claims herein recite neither “step for” nor “means for” nor any substitute therefore, the examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I). Because all examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I), the Examiners conclude that all examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(6th ¶). See also Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215-16 (B.P.A.I. 2008)(precedential)(where the Board did not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(6th ¶) because “means for” was not recited and because applicant still possessed an opportunity to amend the claims). Because of the Examiners’ findings above that Applicant is not his own lexicographer and the pending and examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(6th ¶), the pending and examined claims will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification since patentee has an opportunity to amend claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP §2111.01(I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP §2111.01(II). V. DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTIONS 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 C.F.R. §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 C.F.R. §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 C.F.R. §1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 C.F.R. §1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 C.F.R. §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. V.A. Double Patenting Rejections Applying RE48668 Patent Claims 21-37, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-24, 26-30 and 32-37 of the RE48668 Patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 21-24, 26-30 and 32-37 of the RE48668 Patent read on pending claims 21-37 in this reissue application. For example, claim 21 of the RE48668 Patent recites: Pending claim 21. A support structure arrangement for a lithographic apparatus, the support structure arrangement comprising: See claim 21 of the RE48668 Patent which recites “A support structure arrangement for a lithographic apparatus, the support structure arrangement comprising: …” a main body: See claim 21 of the RE48668 Patent which recites “a main body, …” a first plurality of protrusions arranged at a first side of the main body, the ends of the first plurality of protrusions arranged to provide a support surface for a removable object and at least a portion of the main body is located underneath each of the first plurality of protrusions: See claim 21 of the RE48668 Patent which recites “a first plurality of protrusions protruding from the main body and arranged on a first side of the main body, the ends of the first plurality of protrusions arranged to provide a support surface for a removable object and at least a portion of the main body is located underneath each of first plurality of protrusions…” a second plurality of protrusions arranged at a second side of the main body opposite to the first side, the ends of the second plurality of protrusions arranged to provide a surface to engage with a surface of a table configured to support the main body, the second plurality of protrusions having a different pitch than the first plurality of protrusions and at least a portion of the main body is located over each of the second plurality of protrusions; and See claim 21 of the RE48668 Patent which recites “a second plurality of protrusions protruding from the main body and arranged on a second side of the main body opposite to the first side, the ends of the second plurality of protrusions arranged to provide a surface to engage with a surface of a table configured to support the main body, the second plurality of protrusions having a different pitch than the first plurality of protrusions and at least a portion of the main body is located over each of the second plurality of protrusions; …” a temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of a part of the main body between the first side of the main body and the second side of the main body, at least a part of the temperature sensor being on an elongate structure that is elongate in a first direction transverse to the support surface and contacts the main body along at least part of the length of the elongate structure. See claim 21 of the RE48668 Patent which recites “a temperature determining arrangement.” Examiners further find that this phrase as recited in the RE48668 Patent would invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(6th ¶) and thus the arrangement would be limited to the structures of a temperature sensor and a temperature sensor elongate housing. This finding is consistent with the Notice of Allowance mailed March 25, 2021 in the 901 Reissue Application which held the “temperature determining arrangement” of claim 21 of the RE48668 Patent invoked interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(6th ¶) and Applicant paid the issue fee without further prosecution on this issue. Regarding pending claims 22-29, which depend on pending claim 21, Examiners find that (a) claims 22-24 of the RE48668 Patent read on pending claims 22-24, respectively, based on identical or nearly identical language, (b) claim 26 of the RE48668 Patent reads on pending claim 25 based on identical or nearly identical language, (c) claim 21 of the RE48668 Patent reads on pending claim 26 based on identical or nearly identical language, (d) claim 36 of the RE48668 Patent reads on pending claim 27 based on identical or nearly identical language, (e) claim 37 of the RE48668 Patent reads on pending claim 28 based on identical or nearly identical language, and (f) claim 27 of the RE48668 Patent reads on pending claim 29 based on identical or nearly identical language. Further, claim 28 of the RE48668 Patent recites: Pending claim 30. A support structure arrangement for a lithographic apparatus, the support structure arrangement comprising: See claim 28 of the RE48668 Patent which recites “A support structure arrangement for a lithographic apparatus, the support structure arrangement comprising: …” a main body: See claim 28 of the RE48668 Patent which recites “a main body; …” a first plurality of protrusions arranged on a first side of the main body, the ends of the first plurality of protrusions arranged to provide a support surface for a removable object and at least a portion of the main body is located underneath each of first plurality of protrusions: See claim 28 of the RE48668 Patent which recites “a first plurality of protrusions protruding from the main body and arranged on a first side of the main body, the ends of the first plurality of protrusions arranged to provide a support surface for a removable object and at least a portion of the main body is located underneath each of first plurality of protrusions; …” a second plurality of protrusions arranged on a second side of the main body opposite to the first side, the ends of the second plurality of protrusions arranged to provide a surface to engage with a surface of a table configured to support the main body, wherein, in a horizontal direction, at least one protrusion of the first plurality of protrusions is located between two adjacent protrusions of the second plurality of protrusions and at least a portion of the main body is located over each of the second plurality of protrusions; and See claim 28 of the RE48668 Patent which recites “a second plurality of protrusions protruding from the main body and arranged on a second side of the main body opposite to the first side, the ends of the second plurality of protrusions arranged to provide a surface to engage with a surface of a table configured to support the main body, wherein, in a horizontal direction, at least one protrusion of the first plurality of protrusions is located between two adjacent protrusions of the second plurality of protrusions and at least a portion of the main body is located over each of the second plurality of protrusions; …” a temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of a part of the main body between the first side of the main body and the second side of the main body, at least a part of the temperature sensor being on an elongate structure that is elongate in a first direction transverse to the support surface and contacts the main body along at least part of the length of the elongate structure. See claim 28 of the RE48668 Patent which recites “a temperature determining device.” Examiners further find that this phrase as recited in the RE48668 Patent would invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(6th ¶) and thus the device would be limited to the structures of a temperature sensor and a temperature sensor elongate housing. This finding is consistent with the Notice of Allowance mailed March 25, 2021 in the 901 Reissue Application which held the “temperature determining arrangement” of claim 28 of the RE48668 Patent invoked interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(6th ¶) and Applicant paid the issue fee without further prosecution on this issue. Regarding pending claims 31-37, which depend on pending claim 30, Examiners find that (a) claim 29 of the RE48668 Patent read on pending claim 31 based on identical or nearly identical language, (b) claim 30 of the RE48668 Patent reads on pending claim 32 based on identical or nearly identical language, (c) claim 32 of the RE48668 Patent reads on pending claim 33 based on identical or nearly identical language, (d) claim 28 of the RE48668 Patent reads on pending claim 34 based on identical or nearly identical language, (e) claim 34 of the RE48668 Patent reads on pending claim 35 based on identical or nearly identical language, (f) claim 35 of the RE48668 Patent reads on pending claim 36 based on identical or nearly identical language, and (g) claim 33 of the RE48668 Patent reads on pending claim 37 based on identical or nearly identical language. VI. ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER While claims 21-37 are rejected under double patenting, all claims are nevertheless allowable over the prior art of record in this reissue application. These claims are allowed for the same reasons as provided in the 2025 Final, pages 13-14 thereof. Furthermore, Examiners do not find claims 38-40 rejectable over double patenting applying the RE48668 Patent in view of the limitation of the heat transfer channel “being elongate in a direction essentially parallel to the support.” VII. EXAMINERS’ RESPONSES TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS Regarding the only rejections maintained from the 2025 NF Action, i.e., the double patenting rejections of claims 21-37, Examiners find the Applicant has not specifically traversed these rejections in the manner as required under 37 C.F.R. §1.111. See Mar 2026 Amendment page 9. Accordingly, Examiners find no response is necessary. VIII. PRIOR OR CONCURRENT PROCEEDINGS Applicant is reminded of the obligation apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceedings in which the 005 Patent is or was involved, such as interferences or trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, reissues, reexaminations, or litigations and the results of such proceedings. IX. INFORMATION MATERIAL TO PATENTABILITY Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. §1.56 to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. X. CONCLUSION Claims 21-40 are pending. Claims 21-37 are rejected. Claims 38-40 are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm, Monday - Friday. 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, Andrew J. Fischer can be reached at (571) 272-6779. 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. /KENNETH WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 Conferees: /MY TRANG TON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /ANDREW J. FISCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 29, 2021
Application Filed
Jul 29, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 30, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 06, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Mar 01, 2024
Response Filed
Mar 12, 2024
Final Rejection — §DP
Aug 12, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 13, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Aug 28, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 10, 2025
Final Rejection — §DP
Mar 10, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 11, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent RE50841
ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent RE50838
ELECTROSTATIC CHUCK ASSEMBLY FOR HIGH TEMPERATURE PROCESSES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573546
TRANSFORMER MODULE WITH UI CORE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent RE50821
ELECTROSTATIC CHUCK ASSEMBLY FOR HIGH TEMPERATURE PROCESSES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12512259
Spacer tape, method for manufacturing a winding and winding
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
54%
With Interview (-16.8%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 420 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month