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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made that the instant application claims is a national stage entry of PCT/CN2020/126651, filed on 11/5/2020, which claims priority from CN202011176354.3, filed on 10/29/2020.
Status
Acknowledgment is made of the preliminary amendment filed on 4/29/2023, which amended claims 7 and 10 and added new claims 11-13. Claims 1-13 are currently pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words and contains the legal term “said” in line 1 and line 9. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 15, “the diameter” should be changed to --a diameter-- to correct antecedence.
Claim 1, line 16, “the inner diameter” should be changed to --an inner diameter-- to correct antecedence.
Claim 10, lines 9-10, 11 and 12, “the extraction flow path” should be changed to --the recovery flow path-- to correct antecedence from claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required to place claims in better form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 7 and 11-13 recite “wherein the orifice plate is provided with a plurality of through holes.” Independent claim 1, in lines 14-15, recites “the orifice plate has through holes in a fluid flow direction.” As the independent claim already requires the orifice plate to have multiple through holes and claims 7 and 11-13 do not place further limitations on the orifice plate, claim 7 fails to further limit claim 1, and claims 11-13 fail to further limit claims 2, 4, and 6, respectively. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claims 7 and 11-13 are rejected as being of improper dependent form. 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 1-7 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemper et al. (US PGPub 2010/0149501, Kemper hereinafter) in view of Kishiume et al. (US PGPub 2014/0227644, Kishiume hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Kemper discloses an immersion fluid recovery system (Figs. 1-10, paras. [0027], [0047]-[0052], the lithographic apparatus includes a liquid confinement structure), comprising an immersion fluid supply and recovery apparatus (Figs. 1-10, paras. [0047]-[0052], [0058]-[0059], the liquid confinement structure 12 supplies liquid by outlet 13 and recovers liquid by outlet 14) and a recovery cavity (Figs. 6 and 8-10, paras. [0059], extraction chamber 30), and characterized by further comprising a sealing extraction opening (Figs. 6, 8, 9, 10, paras. [0047]-[0052], [0058]-[0059], the liquid confinement structure 12 includes liquid recovered by outlet 14), a recovery flow path (Figs. 6, 8, 9, 10, paras. [0059]-[0060], the two-phase fluid flows into an extraction channel 40 with passageway 35), a gas-liquid separator (Figs. 6, 8, 9, 10, paras. [0060], chamber 50 is a separation tank for separating two-phase fluid mixture);
the sealing extraction opening and the recovery cavity are disposed around a terminal objective lens and are located in the immersion fluid supply and recovery apparatus above a substrate (Figs. 6 and 8-10, paras. [0031], [0047]-[0052], [0058]-[0059], the liquid confinement structure 12 includes outlet 14 and extraction chamber 30 arranged around the projection system PS having a final optical element);
the sealing extraction opening is located in the immersion fluid supply and recovery apparatus and is oriented toward the substrate, the sealing extraction opening extracts immersion fluid from a gap between the immersion fluid supply and recovery apparatus and the substrate, and also extracts, from the gap, gas at the radial outer side of the immersion fluid (Figs. 6 and 8-10, paras. [0031], [0047]-[0052], [0057]-[0059], the liquid confinement structure 12 includes outlet 14 that faces the substrate W, the outlet 14 extracts liquid from a space between the liquid confinement structure 12 and the substrate and removes gas from around the immersion liquid in immersion space 11);
the recovery cavity is located inside the immersion fluid supply and recovery apparatus and is in communication with the sealing extraction opening (Figs. 6 and 8-10, paras. [0031], [0047]-[0052], [0058]-[0059], the extraction chamber 30 is arranged in the liquid confinement structure and connected to outlet 14);
the recovery cavity is in communication with, by means of the recovery flow path, a cavity of the gas-liquid separator disposed outside the immersion fluid supply and recovery apparatus (Figs. 6, 8, 9, 10, paras. [0058]-[0061], [0077]-[0080], [0083]-[0084], the two-phase fluid flows into the chamber 50 via the extraction channel 40 with passageway 35 from the extraction chamber 30. The chamber 50 is external to the confinement structure 12 as the extraction channel 40 is partially located outside the fluid confinement structure 12 (see para. [0059])). Kemper does not appear to explicitly describe an orifice plate, the orifice plate is disposed in the recovery flow path, the orifice plate has through holes in a fluid flow direction, and the size of the diameter of the through holes is less than the size of the inner diameter of a recovery pipe of the recovery flow path where the orifice plate is located.
Kishiume discloses an orifice plate (Figs. 10, 13-14, 17, paras. [0181]-[0182], [0197], mesh member 54, 89), the orifice plate is disposed in the recovery flow path, the orifice plate has through holes in a fluid flow direction, and the size of the diameter of the through holes is less than the size of the inner diameter of a recovery pipe of the recovery flow path where the orifice plate is located (Figs. 9-10, 13-14, 17, paras. [0148], [0154]-[0156], [0181]-[0182], [0193]-[0198], mesh member 54, 89 is disposed in the liquid recovery path 87 and is mesh with apertures in the direction of fluid flow, the size of the individual apertures of the mesh is less than the diameter of the inlet of the liquid recovery path 87).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included an orifice plate, the orifice plate is disposed in the recovery flow path, the orifice plate has through holes in a fluid flow direction, and the size of the diameter of the through holes is less than the size of the inner diameter of a recovery pipe of the recovery flow path where the orifice plate is located as taught by Kishiume in the recovery flow path of the immersion fluid recovery system as taught by Kemper since including an orifice plate, the orifice plate is disposed in the recovery flow path, the orifice plate has through holes in a fluid flow direction, and the size of the diameter of the through holes is less than the size of the inner diameter of a recovery pipe of the recovery flow path where the orifice plate is located is commonly used to permit exposure while scanning the stage at a high speed and to reduce contamination of the immersion fluid recovery system to improve throughput by reducing the necessity for cleaning (Kishiume, paras. [0108], [0117]).
Regarding claim 2, Kemper as modified by Kishiume discloses the general conditions of the ratio of the length of the orifice plate in the fluid flow direction to the diameter of the through holes (Kishiume, Figs. 9-10, 13-14, 17, paras. [0148], [0154]-[0157], [0166]-[0172], [0181]-[0182], [0195]-[0197], mesh member 54, 89 is disposed in the liquid recovery path 87. The mesh member 89 has a length along the direction of liquid flow as well as diameters of small holes 24H in the mesh member), but Kemper as modified by Kishiume does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the ratio is less than 2. However, since Kemper as modified by Kishiume discloses the general condition of the length of the orifice plate in the fluid flow direction and the diameter of the through holes (Kishiume, Figs. 9-10, 13-14, 17, paras. [0148], [0154]-[0157], [0166]-[0172], [0181]-[0182], [0195]-[0197], mesh member 89 has a length along the direction of liquid flow as well as diameters of small holes 24H in the mesh member), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included optimizing the ratio of the length of the orifice plate in the fluid flow direction to the diameter of the through holes in the immersion fluid recovery system as taught by Kemper as taught by Kemper to obtain the ratio is less than 2 since it would only have required routine skill to determine the optimized ratio to control adhesion of the liquid recovered to reduce the number of defects from reprecipitation of the resist topcoat during recovery, thereby improving throughput (Kishiume, paras. [0161]-[0162]) while providing a stable orifice plate structure. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05, subsection IIA.
Regarding claim 3, Kemper as modified by Kishiume discloses the general conditions of the ratio of the length of the orifice plate in the fluid flow direction to the diameter of the through holes (Kishiume, Figs. 9-10, 13-14, 17, paras. [0148], [0154]-[0157], [0166]-[0172], [0181]-[0182], [0195]-[0197], mesh member 54, 89 is disposed in the liquid recovery path 87. The mesh member 89 has a length along the direction of liquid flow as well as diameters of small holes 24H in the mesh member), but Kemper as modified by Kishiume does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the ratio is 2 to 20. However, since Kemper as modified by Kishiume discloses the general condition of the length of the orifice plate in the fluid flow direction and the diameter of the through holes (Kishiume, Figs. 9-10, 13-14, 17, paras. [0148], [0154]-[0157], [0166]-[0172], [0181]-[0182], [0195]-[0197], mesh member 89 has a length along the direction of liquid flow as well as diameters of small holes 24H in the mesh member), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included optimizing the ratio of the length of the orifice plate in the fluid flow direction to the diameter of the through holes in the immersion fluid recovery system as taught by Kemper as taught by Kemper to obtain the ratio of the length of the orifice plate in the fluid flow direction to the diameter of the through holes is 2 to 20 since it would only have required routine skill to determine the optimized ratio to control adhesion of the liquid recovered to reduce the number of defects from reprecipitation of the resist topcoat during recovery, thereby improving throughput (Kishiume, paras. [0161]-[0162]) while providing a stable orifice plate structure. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05, subsection IIA.
Regarding claim 4, Kemper as modified by Kishiume discloses the general conditions of wherein the transverse distance between the axial end face of the orifice plate and the cavity of the gas-liquid separator (Kemper, Figs. 6, 8, 9, 10, paras. [0058]-[0061], [0077]-[0080], [0083]-[0084], the chamber 50 is external to the confinement structure 12 as the extraction channel 40 is partially located outside the fluid confinement structure 12 (see para. [0059]), and as modified by Kishiume, Figs. 9-10, 13-14, 17, paras. [0148], [0154]-[0157], [0166]-[0172], [0181]-[0182], [0193]-[0197], mesh member 89 is arranged in liquid recovery path 87 a distance from a liquid recovery device), but Kemper as modified by Kishiume does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the transverse distance between the axial end face of the orifice plate and the cavity of the gas-liquid separator is not more than 3 times the length of the orifice plate in the fluid flow direction. However, since Kemper as modified by Kishiume discloses the general conditions of the transverse distance between the axial end face of the orifice plate and the cavity of the gas-liquid separator, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included optimizing the transverse distance between the axial end face of the orifice plate and the cavity of the gas-liquid separator holes in the immersion fluid recovery system as taught by Kemper as taught by Kemper to obtain wherein the transverse distance between the axial end face of the orifice plate and the cavity of the gas-liquid separator is not more than 3 times the length of the orifice plate in the fluid flow direction since it would have only required routine skill to optimize the distance to provide a compact immersion fluid recovery system while reducing the number of defects from reprecipitation of the resist topcoat during recovery, thereby improving throughput (Kishiume, paras. [0161]-[0162]). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05, subsection IIA.
Regarding claim 5, Kemper as modified by Kishiume discloses the general conditions of the diameter of the through holes and the diameter of the recovery flow path (Kishiume, Figs. 9-10, 13-14, 17, paras. [0148], [0154]-[0157], [0166]-[0172], [0181]-[0182], [0195]-[0197], mesh member 89 has through holes 24H with a diameter and is arranged in liquid recovery path 87 having a diameter), but Kemper as modified by Kishiume does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the ratio of the diameter of the through holes to the inner diameter of the recovery flow path is 0.4 to 0.6. However, since Kemper as modified by Kishiume discloses the general conditions of the diameter of the through holes and the diameter of the recovery flow path, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included optimizing the diameter of the through holes and the diameter of the recovery flow path in the immersion fluid recovery system as taught by Kemper as taught by Kishiume to obtain wherein the ratio of the diameter of the through holes to the inner diameter of the recovery flow path is 0.4 to 0.6 since it would only have required routine skill to determine the optimal ratio to control adhesion of the liquid recovered to reduce the number or defects from reprecipitation of the resist topcoat during recovery, thereby improving throughput (Kishiume, paras. [0161]-[0162]) while providing a stable orifice plate structure. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05, subsection IIA.
Regarding claim 6, Kemper as modified by Kishiume discloses the general condition of the distance between the axial end face of the orifice plate and the recovery cavity (Kemper, Figs. 6 and 8-10, paras. [0059], extraction chamber 30, and as modified by Kishiume Figs. 9-10, 13-14, 17, paras. [0148], [0154]-[0157], [0166]-[0172], [0181]-[0182], [0193]-[0197], mesh member 89 is arranged in liquid recovery path 87 a distance from a liquid recovery device), but Kemper as modified by Kishiume does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the distance between the axial end face of the orifice plate and the recovery cavity is not more than 3 times the length of the orifice plate in the fluid flow direction. However, since Kemper as modified by Kishiume discloses the general conditions of the distance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included optimizing the distance between the axial end face of the orifice plate and the recovery cavity and the length of the orifice plate in the fluid flow direction in the in the immersion fluid recovery system as taught by Kemper as taught by Kemper to obtain wherein the distance between the axial end face of the orifice plate and the recovery cavity is not more than 3 times the length of the orifice plate in the fluid flow direction since it would only have required routine skill to determine the optimal distance to provide a compact immersion fluid recovery system while reducing the number of defects from reprecipitation of the resist topcoat during recovery, thereby improving throughput (Kishiume, paras. [0161]-[0162]) “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05, subsection IIA.
Regarding claim 7, Kemper as modified by Kishiume discloses wherein the orifice plate is provided with a plurality of through holes (Kishiume, Figs. 9-10, 13-14, 17, paras. [0148], [0154]-[0156], [0181]-[0182], [0195]-[0197], mesh member 54, 89 is disposed in the liquid recovery path and is mesh with apertures in the direction of fluid flow, the size of the individual apertures of the mesh is less than the diameter of the inlet of the liquid recovery path 87).
Regarding claim 10, Kemper as modified by Kishiume discloses an immersion fluid recovery method (Kemper, Figs. 1-10, paras. [0047]-[0052], [0058]-[0059], the liquid confinement structure 12 supplies liquid by outlet 13 and recovers liquid), comprising the following steps:
A1: extracting immersion fluid and gas around the periphery of the immersion fluid by means of a sealing extraction opening on the side, facing a substrate, of an immersion fluid supply and recovery apparatus (Kemper, Figs. 6 and 8-10, paras. [0031], [0047]-[0052], [0057]-[0059], the liquid confinement structure 12 includes outlet 14 that faces the substrate W, the outlet 14 extracts liquid from a space between the liquid confinement structure 12 and the substrate and removes gas from around the immersion liquid in immersion space 11);
A2: the immersion fluid and the gas forming a gas-liquid two-phase flow, which then flows into the recovery cavity described in claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above, Kemper, Figs. 6, 8, 9, 10, paras. [0058]-[0061], [0077]-[0080], [0083]-[0084], the two-phase fluid flows into the extraction chamber 30);
A3: extracting the gas-liquid two-phase flow from the recovery cavity and discharging same to the gas-liquid separator described in claim 1 through the extraction flow path (see claim 1 rejection above, Kemper, Figs. 6, 8, 9, 10, paras. [0058]-[0061], [0077]-[0080], [0083]-[0084], the two-phase fluid flows into the chamber 50 via the extraction channel 40 with passageway 35 from the extraction chamber 30), wherein the gas-liquid two-phase flow passes through the orifice plate described in claim 1 in the extraction flow path (see claim 1 rejection above, Kishiume, Figs. 9-10, 13-14, 17, paras. [0148], [0154]-[0156], [0181]-[0182], [0193]-[0198], mesh member 54, 89 is disposed in the liquid recovery path 87 and is mesh with apertures in the direction of fluid flow), and the orifice plate has through holes which have a diameter smaller than that of the extraction flow path and through which the gas-liquid two-phase flow passes (Kishiume, Figs. 9-10, 13-14, 17, paras. [0148], [0154]-[0156], [0181]-[0182], [0193]-[0198], mesh member 54, 89 is disposed in the liquid recovery path 87 and is mesh with apertures in the direction of fluid flow, the size of the individual apertures of the mesh is less than the diameter of the inlet of the liquid recovery path 87); and
A4: the gas-liquid two-phase flow entering the gas-liquid separator to be separated into gas and liquid, which are then continuously extracted by an air pump (Kemper, Figs. 6 and 8-10, para. [0060], a pump is attached to the gas exit 52 of the chamber 50) and a liquid pump (Kemper, Figs. 6 and 8-10, para. [0060], a liquid extraction pump is connected to exit 54 of chamber 50) wherein the air pump extracts gas from the gas-liquid separator, and the liquid pump extracts immersion fluid from the gas-liquid separator (Kemper, Figs. 6 and 8-10, paras. [0060]-[0062], the liquid 58 settles in the bottom of chamber 50 and is extracted through a liquid extraction pump attached to exit 54, and gas 56 is removed through exit 52 connected to a pump).
Regarding claim 11, Kemper as modified by Kishiume discloses wherein the orifice plate is provided with a plurality of through holes (Kishiume, Figs. 9-10, 13-14, 17, paras. [0148], [0154]-[0156], [0181]-[0182], [0195]-[0197], mesh member 54, 89 is disposed in the liquid recovery path and is mesh with apertures in the direction of fluid flow, the size of the individual apertures of the mesh is less than the diameter of the inlet of the liquid recovery path 87).
Regarding claim 12, Kemper as modified by Kishiume discloses wherein the orifice plate is provided with a plurality of through holes (Kishiume, Figs. 9-10, 13-14, 17, paras. [0148], [0154]-[0156], [0181]-[0182], [0195]-[0197], mesh member 54, 89 is disposed in the liquid recovery path and is mesh with apertures in the direction of fluid flow, the size of the individual apertures of the mesh is less than the diameter of the inlet of the liquid recovery path 87).
Regarding claim 13, Kemper as modified by Kishiume discloses wherein the orifice plate is provided with a plurality of through holes (Kishiume, Figs. 9-10, 13-14, 17, paras. [0148], [0154]-[0156], [0181]-[0182], [0195]-[0197], mesh member 54, 89 is disposed in the liquid recovery path and is mesh with apertures in the direction of fluid flow, the size of the individual apertures of the mesh is less than the diameter of the inlet of the liquid recovery path 87).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemper as modified by Kishiume as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hara (JP2005-191344, English translation attached with this Office Action).
Regarding claim 9, Kemper as modified by Kishiume does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the recovery cavity is provided with a plurality of recovery flow paths communicating with the gas-liquid separator.
Hara discloses wherein the recovery cavity is provided with a plurality of recovery flow paths communicating with a recovery section (Figs. 1-6, second full paragraph of page 9 of the English translation, multiple recovery pipes 22 connect to one liquid recovery section 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the recovery cavity is provided with a plurality of recovery flow paths communicating with a recovery section as taught by Hara with the gas-liquid separator in the immersion fluid recovery system as taught by Kemper as taught by Kishiume such that the recovery cavity is provided with a plurality of recovery flow paths communicating with the gas-liquid separator is commonly used to predictably recover fluid to a single chamber, thereby reducing the total footprint of the immersion fluid recovery system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious wherein an adapter is disposed in the immersion fluid supply and recovery apparatus, the adapter is disposed at the joint where the recovery flow path and the immersion fluid supply and recovery apparatus are connected, the immersion fluid supply and recovery apparatus and the recovery flow path facing the side where the gas-liquid separator is located are provided with a communicating recovery pipe, and the adapter is connected to the connection end between the immersion fluid supply and recovery apparatus and the recovery pipe; the adapter presses the orifice plate against the radial outer end face of the immersion fluid supply and recovery apparatus, and one end of the recovery pipe is fixedly connected to the adapter; and a through channel is disposed inside the adapter, and the through channel communicates with the internal space of the recovery pipe and the recovery cavity. These limitations in combination with all of the other limitations of the parent claim would render claim 8 non-obvious over the prior art of record if rewritten.
Although Kemper discloses the recovery cavity is in communication with, by means of the recovery flow path, a cavity of the gas-liquid separator disposed outside the immersion fluid supply and recovery apparatus (Figs. 6, 8, 9, 10, paras. [0058]-[0061], [0077]-[0080], [0083]-[0084], the two-phase fluid flows into the chamber 50 via the extraction channel 40 with passageway 35 from the extraction chamber 30. The chamber 50 is external to the confinement structure 12 as the extraction channel 40 is partially located outside the fluid confinement structure 12 (see para. [0059])), Kemper does not describe or suggest an adapter is disposed in the immersion fluid supply and recovery apparatus, the adapter is disposed at the joint where the recovery flow path and the immersion fluid supply and recovery apparatus are connected, the immersion fluid supply and recovery apparatus and the recovery flow path facing the side where the gas-liquid separator is located are provided with a communicating recovery pipe, and the adapter is connected to the connection end between the immersion fluid supply and recovery apparatus and the recovery pipe; the adapter presses the orifice plate against the radial outer end face of the immersion fluid supply and recovery apparatus, and one end of the recovery pipe is fixedly connected to the adapter; and a through channel is disposed inside the adapter, and the through channel communicates with the internal space of the recovery pipe and the recovery cavity.
Kishiume discloses the orifice plate is disposed in the recovery flow path, the orifice plate has through holes in a fluid flow direction (Figs. 9-10, 13-14, 17, paras. [0148], [0154]-[0156], [0181]-[0182], [0193]-[0198], mesh member 54, 89 is disposed in the liquid recovery path 87 and is mesh with apertures in the direction of fluid flow), but Kishiume does not describe or render obvious an adapter is disposed in the immersion fluid supply and recovery apparatus, the adapter is disposed at the joint where the recovery flow path and the immersion fluid supply and recovery apparatus are connected, the immersion fluid supply and recovery apparatus and the recovery flow path facing the side where the gas-liquid separator is located are provided with a communicating recovery pipe, and the adapter is connected to the connection end between the immersion fluid supply and recovery apparatus and the recovery pipe; the adapter presses the orifice plate against the radial outer end face of the immersion fluid supply and recovery apparatus, and one end of the recovery pipe is fixedly connected to the adapter; and a through channel is disposed inside the adapter, and the through channel communicates with the internal space of the recovery pipe and the recovery cavity.
Nagasaka et al. (US PGPub 2007/0242241) discloses a recovery flow path connected to a recovery pipe via joints (Fig. 5, para. [0078], joints 81), but Nagasaka does not describe or render obvious an adapter is disposed in the immersion fluid supply and recovery apparatus, the adapter is connected to the connection end between the immersion fluid supply and recovery apparatus and the recovery pipe; the adapter presses the orifice plate against the radial outer end face of the immersion fluid supply and recovery apparatus, and one end of the recovery pipe is fixedly connected to the adapter; and a through channel is disposed inside the adapter, and the through channel communicates with the internal space of the recovery pipe and the recovery cavity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA A. RIDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7538. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30AM-5PM.
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, Minh-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.
/CHRISTINA A RIDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882