DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remarks
1. Applicant is reminded that a proper reply, per 37 CFR 1.111, requires: “clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made” (37 CFR 1.111(c)). Applicant’s arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because Applicant did not present any explanation as to their thoughts on patentable novelty of the newly presented claims. Further, these arguments do not sufficiently show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
2. Applicant’s remarks (see pgs. 7-8), filed 02/02/2026, regarding the prior art rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but are moot upon further consideration because the new grounds of rejection in light of a change of teachings are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments (on 02/02/2026), as detailed below. In the interest of the clarity of the record, Examiner also notes that Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art references of Kools and Balogh as utilized in the prior art rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to make arguments directed to the newly amended limitation, that “Kools does not disclose such subject matter. To the contrary, Kools discloses that his cooling lines 100 are below his mirror” (pg. 7 of Remarks). Although Kools discloses a preferred embodiment wherein the first channel system is not above the optical element (as claimed) and is below the optical element (see FIGS. 6 & 8 showing first channel 100 is not above optical element), Kools nonetheless teaches that the location and arrangement of the first channel system is modifiable and optimizable depending on the thermal load distribution applied to the optical element (see cited portions Kools discussed below). Although Kools does not appear to explicitly disclose that the first channel system is not below the optical element, it has been held that where a mere rearrangement of parts without modification of the operation of the device is disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP § 2144.04, Section VI, citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), wherein the court upheld that claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.) See also In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to slightly arrange Kool’s first channel system such that the channel surrounds the mirror concentrically at the outer edge of the optical element to satisfy the claimed condition (see FIGS. 6 & 8; ¶0041 of Kools: Cooling lines 100 need not be evenly spaced apart, and in example embodiments are more concentrated either closer the center of mirror module (as defined by axis A1) or closer to the edge (as defined by substrate edge 26)) to be sufficiently spaced apart, depending on the thermal load distribution over the mirror module, to reduce or eliminate deleterious "print-through" of the cooling channels (¶0036)), and especially since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where a mere rearrangement of an element involves only routine skill in the art as a matter of design choice. Additionally, The Examiner notes that the instant specification teaches that the first and second cooling channel configurations provide the beneficial results of “heat dissipation and heat absorption” (pg. 4 of as-filed spec. filed 09/27/2022). Kools also teaches these expected and beneficial results when optimizing the cooling channel positional configurations (¶0038: efficient thermal diffusion paths from electroformed mirror 30 to cooling channels 100). See MPEP § 716. 02(c) stating, "Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof". See In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538, 152 USPQ 602, 604 (CCPA 1967). See also Ex parte Blanc, 13 USPQ2d 1383 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). Thus, the Applicant has not disputed the Examiner’s findings regarding the teachings of Kools nor has the Applicant provided evidence of new and unexpected results relative to the prior art. Applicant further asserts “given the design of Kools' system, such a modification would have been expected to reduce the ability of the system to cool the mirror” (pgs. 7-8). However, such an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support is insufficient to rebut Examiner's finding of obviousness. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). Furthermore, contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Kools states that the arrangement of the channel system is modifiable such that “cooling channels 100 can be configured to provide for short and efficient thermal diffusion paths from electroformed mirror 30 to cooling channels 100” (¶0038). Kools further teaches that the first and second channel system’s arrangement relative to each other and relative to the optical element surface may be optimized (FIG. 8; ¶0041 of Kools: Cooling lines 100 need not be evenly spaced apart, and in example embodiments are more concentrated either closer the center of mirror module (as defined by axis A1) or closer to the edge (as defined by substrate edge 26)) to be sufficiently spaced apart, depending on the thermal load distribution over the mirror module, to reduce or eliminate deleterious "print-through" of the cooling channels (¶0036 of Kools).
Applicant appears to make arguments that “Balogh discloses a system having a very different design (collector that includes a plurality of mirror surfaces, such as described in relation to Figure 5) compared to the system disclosed in Kools (single mirror surface)” (pg. 8 of Remarks). However, the Examiner notes that Balogh was not relied upon for any teachings directed to the mirror surface, but rather for combining the teachings of Kools with the teachings of Balogh specifically directed to the claimed first channel location. In the interest of the clarity of the record, Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP § 2145 Section IV, citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) and In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, Applicant appears to be arguing features that are not claimed, namely that Balogh’s assembly comprises more than one optical element. However, the present claim language utilizes the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising”, thereby allowing additional and unrecited elements in the assembly as within the scope of the claims. See MPEP § 2111.03 Section I. Thus, the Balogh reference disclosing a plurality of mirror surfaces do not teach away from the present claim language of an assembly comprising an optical element as claimed.
In conclusion, as explained above, none of Applicant’s arguments against the prior art are persuasive, and thus the newly amended Claims 1, 3-20 and 22 are rejected based upon previously-cited references and upon additional teachings, as detailed below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 22 objected to because of the following informalities:
The enumeration i) through ii) separating the elements of claims 1 and 22 should be removed and replaced appropriately with a line indentation instead. See MPEP § 608.01 (m) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.75(i), stating “Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 3-16, 18-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kools (US 2011/0255068 A1) in view of Balogh et al. (US 7,329,014 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Kools discloses: An assembly (FIG. 6), comprising: an optical element having a center (¶0038: electroformed mirror 30); a first channel system; and a second channel system (FIG. 8: 100; ¶0040-41: cooling channels 100), wherein: the first channel system is within an outer enclosure for the optical element; relative to the center of the optical element, the first channel system is outside the optical element; relative to the center of the optical element, the second channel system is entirely outside the first channel system in the radial direction (¶0039-41; see FIGS. 6 & 8 showing first and second channels 100 within an outer enclosure for the optical element 30, the second channel 100 entirely outside the first channel system 100 in a radial direction); the first channel system is configured to have cooling fluid flow therethrough to dissipate heat absorbed by the optical element due to electromagnetic radiation incident on the optical element (¶0036: laser fusion systems or synchrotron mirrors, where heating could raise the temperature of mirror module 10 to beyond the bonding material melting temperature, or deform the mirror surface…thus, multiple cooling channels 100 are used); and the second channel system is configured to have a cooling fluid flow therethrough to at least partially thermally shield an area of the assembly from the heat absorbed by the cooling fluid in the first channel system (¶0042: when mirror module 10 is used to reflect a collimated and substantially uniform light beam of high intensity that subjects the mirror module to a substantially uniform heat load, cooling lines 100 are preferably configured to provide uniform cooling over most of if not the entire area of electroformed mirror front surface 32); along a direction perpendicular to the radial direction: i) the first channel system is not above the optical element (¶0036, 0041; see FIGS. 6 & 8 showing first channel 100 is not above the optical element 30).
Kools does not appear to explicitly disclose: along a direction perpendicular to the radial direction: the first channel system is not below the optical element.
However, it has been held that where a mere rearrangement of parts without modification of the operation of the device is disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP § 2144.04, Section VI, citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), wherein the court upheld that claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.) See also In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to slightly rearrange Kool’s first channel system such that the channel 100 surrounds the mirror concentrically at the outer edge of the optical element to satisfy the claimed condition (see FIGS. 6 & 8; ¶0036, 0041 of Kools: Cooling lines 100 need not be evenly spaced apart, and in example embodiments are more concentrated either closer the center of mirror module (as defined by axis A1) or closer to the edge (as defined by substrate edge 26)) to be sufficiently spaced apart, depending on the thermal load distribution over the mirror module, to reduce or eliminate deleterious "print-through" of the cooling channels), and since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where a mere rearrangement of an element involves only routine skill in the art as a matter of design choice.
Kools does not appear to explicitly disclose: the first channel system is entirely outside the optical element in a radial direction that extends from the center of the optical element.
Balogh is related to Kools with respect to an analogous assembly comprising an optical element and cooling fluid flow channels (cols. 5-7; FIGS. 1-5) and Balogh teaches: the first channel system is entirely outside the optical element in a radial direction that extends from the center of the optical element (see FIG. 5A-A showing first channel system 53 is entirely outside the (inner) optical element 12 in a radial direction that extends from the center of the optical element 12; c. 5: reflection coating 12 conforming to the optically active surface; c. 7: channels 53 are introduced in the same way as with the silicon substrate 11 described above; c. 5: channels are substantially oriented radially. c.6: construction of the channels in symmetrical curved shapes is only one of many possibilities for a channel system which is, as far as possible, radially symmetrical and uniformly distributed around a circle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to slightly modify the assembly of Kools in view of Balogh to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a first channel is known and would be selected to protect the optically active surface against overheating (col. 5), thereby for rapidly stabilizing the temperature of the optically active surface at a defined level, resulting in quick heat dissipation from transient temperature spikes which occur in pulsed operation for plasma generation and which temporarily exceed the temperature average prevailing at the mirror surface (col. 2), as taught in cols. 5 & 2 of Balogh .
Regarding Claim 3, Kools discloses the assembly according to Claim 1, as above. Kools further discloses: wherein the first channel system is within a holder outside the optical element (¶0025: mirror module 10 includes a carrier substrate 20 having a substrate body 21 with a curved upper surface 22 and an outer edge 26; see FIGS. 5-6 showing the first channel system 100 is within a holder 20 outside the optical element 30).
Regarding Claim 4, Kools discloses the assembly according to Claim 3, as above. Kools further discloses: wherein the second channel system is within the holder (¶0037; see FIGS. 5-6 showing the second channel system 100 is within the holder 20).
Regarding Claim 5, Kools discloses the assembly according to Claim 3, as above. Kools further discloses: wherein the holder holds the optical element (¶0025 & see FIG. 6).
Regarding Claim 6, Kools discloses the assembly according to Claim 1, as above. Kools further discloses: wherein the area is on a side of the first channel system facing away from the optical element (¶0037-38: cooling fluid 110 flows through radial cooling channels 100 radially outward from the substrate body center… placing cooling channels 100 relatively close to substrate surface; see FIG. 6 showing area 20/21 is on a side of the first channel system 100 facing away from the optical element 30).
Regarding Claim 7, Kools discloses the assembly according to Claim 1, as above. Kools further discloses: wherein, relative to the center of the optical element, the first and second channel systems are concentric (¶0041; see FIG. 8 showing the first 100 and second channel systems 100 are concentric; see FIG. 6 showing the aforementioned elements relative to the center of the optical element 30).
Regarding Claim 8, Kools discloses the assembly according to Claim 1, as above. Kools further discloses: wherein the area comprises a member configured to support the optical system (¶0025: mirror module 10 includes a carrier substrate 20 having a substrate body 21 with a curved upper surface 22 and an outer edge 26; see FIGS. 5-6 showing area comprises a member 20 configured to support the optical system 10).
Regarding Claim 9, Kools discloses the assembly according to Claim 1, as above. Kools further discloses: wherein an area of increased thermal insulation is between the first and second channel systems (¶0038-39: thermal diffusion paths through substrate via cooling channels 100; see FIG. 4 & 8 showing area of increased thermal insulation is between the first 100 and second channel systems 100).
Regarding Claim 10, Kools discloses the assembly according to Claim 9, as above. Kools further discloses: wherein the area of increased thermal insulation comprises a gap (see FIG. 8 showing gaps between channels 100 within area of increased thermal insulation on substrate).
Regarding Claim 11, Kools discloses the assembly according to Claim 1, as above. Kools further discloses: further comprising a third channel system between the first and second channel systems (¶0041-42; see FIG. 8 showing a third channel system 100 between the first 100 and second channel systems 100).
Regarding Claim 12, Kools discloses the assembly according to Claim 1, as above. Kools further discloses: wherein at least one member selected from the group consisting of the first channel system and the second channel system comprises an array of channels (¶0041: concentric cooling lines 100; see FIG. 8 showing array of channels 100 comprised within at least one member of the first channel 100 and second channel 100).
Regarding Claim 13, Kools discloses the assembly according to Claim 1, as above. Kools further discloses: wherein the first and second channel systems are in fluid communication (¶0037, 0040: input and output cooling-fluid input and output units 120A and 120B that are connected to cooling channels 100 via respective cooling lines 130A and 130B and that respectively provide and receive cooling fluid 110.; see FIG. 8 showing first 100 and second channel systems 100 are in fluid communication via fluid 110).
Regarding Claim 14, Kools discloses the assembly according to Claim 1, as above. Kools further discloses: further comprising a plurality of nozzles configured to provide fluid communication between the first and second channel systems (see FIGS. 7-8 showing dotted circles of nozzles configured to provide fluid communication between the first and second channel systems 100; ¶0040-41: input and output cooling-fluid input and output units 120A and 120B that are connected to cooling channels 100 via respective cooling lines 130A and 130B and that respectively provide and receive cooling fluid 110).
Regarding Claim 15, Kools discloses the assembly according to Claim 1, as above. Kools further discloses: wherein the first and second channel systems are configured to have cooling fluid enter the first channel system after flowing through the second channel system (¶0039: radial and circular cooling fluid flow paths FPR and FPO through the substrate; see FIG. 7 showing cooling fluid 110 enters the first channel system after flowing through the second channel system via 130).
Regarding Claim 16, Kools discloses the assembly according to Claim 1, as above. Kools further discloses: wherein: the first channel system is configured to have cooling fluid flow therethrough: and second channel system is configured to have cooling fluid therethrough independently of cooling fluid flow through the first channel system (¶0041: concentric cooling lines 100 each connected to input and output cooling fluid units 120A and 120B. Here, the cooling fluid units serve as cooling fluid manifolds that respectively supply and receive cooling fluid 100 from each cooling line; see FIG. 8 showing cooling fluid 110 flows through the first and second channel systems independently of one another via units 120A and 120B).
Regarding Claim 18, Kools discloses the assembly according to Claim 1, as above. Kools further discloses: further comprising a volumetric cooler connected to the first channel system to cool the optical element (¶0041 & FIG. 8: input and output cooling fluid units 120A and 120B. Here, the cooling fluid units serve as cooling fluid manifolds that respectively supply and receive cooling fluid 100 from each cooling line).
Regarding Claim 19, Kools discloses the assembly according to Claim 1, as above. Kools further discloses: wherein the optical element comprises a member selected from the group consisting of a mirror or a mirror array comprising a plurality of mirror elements (¶0025: mirror module 10 also includes a relatively thin electroformed mirror 30).
Regarding Claim 20, Kools discloses the assembly according to Claim 1, as above. Kools further discloses: comprising an assembly according to claim 1, wherein the optical system is a microlithographic projection exposure apparatus (FIG. 9; ¶0002, 0036: EUV lithography system for fabricating semiconductor circuits with linewidths below 50 nm; ¶0047: A projection optical system 226).
Regarding Claim 22, Kools discloses the assembly according to Claim 1, as above. Kools-Balogh further discloses: wherein, along the direction perpendicular to the radial direction: i) the second channel system is not above the optical element (see FIGS. 6 & 8 showing the second channel system 100 is not above the optical element 30).
Kools does not appear to explicitly disclose: along a direction perpendicular to the radial direction: the second channel system is not below the optical element.
However, it has been held that where a mere rearrangement of parts without modification of the operation of the device is disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP § 2144.04, Section VI, citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), wherein the court upheld that claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.) See also In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to slightly rearrange Kool’s second channel system such that the channel 100 surrounds the mirror concentrically at the outer edge of the optical element to satisfy the claimed condition (see FIGS. 6 & 8; ¶0036, 0041 of Kools: Cooling lines 100 need not be evenly spaced apart, and in example embodiments are more concentrated either closer the center of mirror module (as defined by axis A1) or closer to the edge (as defined by substrate edge 26)) to be sufficiently spaced apart, depending on the thermal load distribution over the mirror module, to reduce or eliminate deleterious "print-through" of the cooling channels), and since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where a mere rearrangement of an element involves only routine skill in the art as a matter of design choice.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kools (US 2011/0255068 A1) in view of Balogh et al. (US 7,329,014 B2), and further in view of Kierey et al. (US 2011/0051267 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Kools discloses the assembly according to Claim 1, as above.
While Kools teaches the limitation of “wherein the first and second channel systems are configured to have cooling fluid enter the first channel system after flowing through the second channel system” (see 102 rejection supra) in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the present claim language, in the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that Kools does not explicitly disclose a different interpretation a gap as recited, and thus further submits Kierey. Kierey is related to Kools with respect to an analogous assembly comprising an optical element and cooling fluid flow channels (¶0028, 0032-33; FIGS. 1-2) and Kierey teaches: wherein the first and second channel systems are configured to have cooling fluid enter the first channel system after flowing through the second channel system (The cooling channels 6, can, in principle, be supplied from a first collecting line 11 and lead into a second collecting line 12 (FIG. 2d). It is particularly advantageous for cold and hot cooling media to flow through adjacent cooling channels 6 in opposite directions, as illustrated for example in FIG. 2c and in FIG. 2b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Kools in view of Kierey to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a fluid flow is known and selected as advantageous for minimizing distortion of mirror surface, as taught in ¶0033 of Kierey.
Regarding Claim 17, Kools discloses the assembly according to Claim 1, as above.
Kools does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein at least one member selected from the group consisting of the first channel system and the second channel system branches at least once into areas configured to have cooling fluid flow therethrough.
Kierey is related to Kools with respect to an analogous assembly comprising an optical element and cooling fluid flow channel systems (¶0028, 0032-33; FIGS. 1-2), and Kierey teaches: wherein at least one member selected from the group consisting of the first channel system and the second channel system branches at least once into areas configured to have cooling fluid flow therethrough (FIG. 2b; ¶0033: The cooling channels 6 can be embodied for example in mixed forms (FIG. 2b)… It is particularly advantageous for cold and hot cooling media to flow through adjacent cooling channels 6 in opposite directions, as illustrated for example in FIG. 2b in the case of the curved cooling channels 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to slightly modify the assembly of Kools in view of Kierey to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a branching channel system is known and would be selected to maintain a turbulent flow in the cooling channels, as a result of which heat transfer from the base body 1 to the cooling medium 7 [fluid] is improved, and thereby results in a reduced risk of extensive distortions of the base body 1 and minimization of mirror surface distortion, as taught in paragraph [0033] of Kierey .
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 extension fee 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 SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700 (EST).
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, BUMSUK WON can be reached on 571-272-2713. 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.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872