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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
This application is a national stage entry of PCT/US2021/062705 filed on 12/09/2021 and further claims priority to provisional U.S. Application No. 63/129,122 filed on 12/22/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/07/2023 and 12/30/2025 were filed on or after the filing date of this application on 06/07/2026. The submission is 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 15, 24, 27, 43-46, 48-50, 52-56, and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorobantu et al. (US20180335701A1), hereafter Dorobantu, in view of Zambon et al. (US6392743B1), hereafter Zambon.
Regarding claims 1 and 24, Dorobantu discloses an apparatus for a light source (Title), the apparatus comprising: a monitoring module configured to monitor a fault status of one or more operating conditions of the light source ([0096]); the blower configured to displace a gas mixture including a gain medium from an energy source within the gas discharge chamber ([0080]), the energy source configured to supply energy to the gas mixture ([0080]); and an increment module configured to increase the operating speed of the blower if the fault status relating to one or more operating conditions of the light source is flagged ([0108]). Dorobantu does not appear to explicitly disclose a decrement module configured to reduce an operating speed of a blower arranged in a gas discharge chamber of the light source if the fault status relating to one or more operating conditions of the light source is clear and if the decreased operating speed would be at or above a baseline speed. However, Zambon discloses optimizing blower speed in order to optimize performance for a particular mode of the device (col. 4 ll. 18-35) including a decrement module configured to reduce an operating speed of a blower arranged in a gas discharge chamber of the light source if the fault status relating to one or more operating conditions of the light source is clear and if the decreased operating speed would be at or above a baseline speed (col. 6 ll. 51-55). The advantage is improved laser pulse output parameters (col. 7 ll. 29-38). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dorobantu with a decrement module configured to reduce an operating speed of a blower arranged in a gas discharge chamber of the light source if the fault status relating to one or more operating conditions of the light source is clear and if the decreased operating speed would be at or above a baseline speed as disclosed by Zambon in order to improve laser pulse output parameters based on the desired operating mode.
Regarding claims 3 and 46, Dorobantu further discloses each of the one or more operating conditions is defined by a performance metric relating to the light source or to a light beam produced by the light source ([0106]; See also Figs. 8C and 8D).
Regarding claim 4, Dorobantu further discloses the one or more performance metrics include a wavelength histogram associated with the light beam ([0108]), an energy dose error associated with the light beam ([0108]), an energy error associated with the light beam ([0108]), and an operating point of the gas discharge chamber within the light source ([0108]).
Regarding claim 8, Dorobantu further discloses the fault status relating to the one or more operating conditions of the light source is determined using a filter ([0059]). Dorobantu in view of Zambon do not explicitly disclose the filter is a low pass filter or a weighted sum filter. However, the Office takes Official Notice that low pass filters and weighted sum filters are well known in the art for error detection. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dorobantu in view of Zambon with the filter is a low pass filter or a weighted sum filter as is known in the art in order to use a well-known component to achieve the desired fault status monitoring.
Regarding claims 9 and 50, Dorobantu further discloses the increment module is configured to increase the operating speed of the blower by an increment speed step size ([0108]). Zambon further discloses the decrement module is configured to reduce the operating speed of the blower by a decrement speed step size (col. 6 ll. 51-55). Dorobantu in view of Zambon do not explicitly disclose the increment speed step size is larger than the decrement speed step size. However, Zambon discloses optimizing blower speed in order to optimize performance for a particular mode of the device (col. 4 ll. 18-35). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dorobantu in view of Zambon with disclose the increment speed step size is larger than the decrement speed step size, since Zambon discloses optimizing blower speed in order to optimize performance for a particular mode of the device and the Court has held that choosing from a finite number of identified (increase step is greater than decrease step, increase step and decrease step are equal, or decrease step is greater than increase step), predictable solutions (the increase step being greater than the decrease step allows the fault to be cleared but still allows for improved beam quality with reduced repetition rate), with a reasonable expectation of success (Zambon discloses optimizing the blower speed control) (“obvious to try”) requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claims 15, 27, and 54, Dorobantu further discloses a baseline module configured to increase the operating speed of the blower if the operating speed of the blower is below the baseline speed ([0115]).
Regarding claim 43, Dorobantu discloses an apparatus for controlling an operating speed of each blower in a plurality of blowers, each blower being arranged in a gas discharge chamber of a light generation apparatus of a light source (Fig. 4 elements 405_1…405_n; [0080]), the apparatus comprising: a monitoring module configured to monitor a fault status of one or more operating conditions of the light source (Fig. 4 element 350; [0096]); and an increment module configured to increase an operating speed of an appropriate blower if the fault status relating to one or more operating conditions of the light source is flagged ([0108]). Dorobantu does not appear to explicitly disclose a decrement module configured to reduce an operating speed of a blower arranged in a gas discharge chamber of the light source if the fault status relating to one or more operating conditions of the light source is clear and if the decreased operating speed would be at or above a baseline speed. However, Zambon discloses optimizing blower speed in order to optimize performance for a particular mode of the device (col. 4 ll. 18-35) including a decrement module configured to reduce an operating speed of a blower arranged in a gas discharge chamber of the light source if the fault status relating to one or more operating conditions of the light source is clear and if the decreased operating speed would be at or above a baseline speed (col. 6 ll. 51-55). The advantage is improved laser pulse output parameters (col. 7 ll. 29-38). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dorobantu with a decrement module configured to reduce an operating speed of a blower arranged in a gas discharge chamber of the light source if the fault status relating to one or more operating conditions of the light source is clear and if the decreased operating speed would be at or above a baseline speed as disclosed by Zambon in order to improve laser pulse output parameters based on the desired operating mode.
Regarding claim 44, Dorobantu further discloses the control of the speed of at least one of the blowers relies on performance metrics that define the operating conditions of the light generation apparatus such that control of the at least one blower and another blower is coupled (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 45, Zambon further discloses the decrement module is configured to reduce the operating speed of the appropriate blower if a decreased operating speed of the blower would be at or above a baseline speed (col. 6 ll. 51-55).
Regarding claim 48, Dorobantu further discloses the fault status is flagged if at least one of the associated performance metrics is not within a threshold range of that performance metric ([0103]), and the fault status is clear if all of the associated performance metrics are within their respective threshold range ([0103]).
Regarding claim 49, Dorobantu further discloses at least one of the operating conditions is reactive such that the operating speed of the blower is adjusted after the value of the associated performance metric is not within the threshold range of the performance metric ([0108]). Additionally, Zambon, for the same reasons outlined above, further discloses at least one of the operating conditions of the light source is proactive such that the operating speed of the blower is adjusted prior to the value of the associated performance metric not being within the threshold range of the performance metric (col. 6 ll. 51-55).
Regarding claim 52, Dorobantu in view of Zambon do not explicitly disclose the increment speed step size is less than or equal to 25 rotations per minute (rpm), and the decrement speed step size is about one half, one third, one fourth, or one fifth of the increment speed step size. However, Zambon discloses optimizing blower speed in order to optimize performance for a particular mode of the device (col. 4 ll. 18-35). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dorobantu in view of Zambon with the increment speed step size is less than or equal to 25 rotations per minute (rpm), and the decrement speed step size is about one half, one third, one fourth, or one fifth of the increment speed step size since Zambon discloses optimizing blower speed in order to optimize performance for a particular mode of the device and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 53, Dorobantu further discloses the operating speed of the blower is adjusted within a blower speed range defined by a minimum blower speed and a maximum blower speed (Inherent – All fans have a minimum and maximum speed and the fan can only be controlled within these limits). Dorobantu further discloses by the increment module ([0108]). Zambon further discloses the decrement module (col. 6 ll. 51-55).
Regarding claim 55, Dorobantu in view of Zambon do not explicitly disclose the apparatus is a state machine for the light source such that the monitoring module is a monitoring state, the decrement module is a decrement state, and the increment module is an increment state. However, the Office takes Official Notice that state machines that change between states based on an input is well known in the art. An advantage is to allow for cleaner bug resistant code by formalizing system logic. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dorobantu in view of Zambon with the apparatus is a state machine for the light source such that the monitoring module is a monitoring state, the decrement module is a decrement state, and the increment module is an increment state, since state machines that change between states (increment vs. decrement) based on an input (fault vs. no fault) are well known in the art in order to allow for cleaner bug resistant code by formalizing system logic.
Regarding claim 56, Zambon further discloses decreasing the operating speed of the blower in the decrement state (col. 6 ll. 51-55). Zambon in view of Dorobantu do not explicitly disclose after decreasing the operating speed of the blower in the decrement state, the state machine transitions from the decrement state to the increment state if the fault status relating to one or more operating conditions of the light source is flagged. However, Dorobantu discloses switching to an increment state if the fault status relating to one or more operating conditions of the light source is flagged after operating the device ([0108]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zambon in view of Dorobantu with after decreasing the operating speed of the blower in the decrement state, the state machine transitions from the decrement state to the increment state if the fault status relating to one or more operating conditions of the light source is flagged, since Zambon discloses decreasing the operating speed of the blower in the decrement state and Dorobantu discloses switching to an increment state if the fault status relating to one or more operating conditions of the light source is flagged after operating the device in order to detect faults and maintain the desired output.
Regarding claim 59, Dorobantu discloses an ultraviolet light source ([0081] a wavelength of 100nm to 400nm is considered “ultraviolet) comprising: a light generation apparatus comprising a plurality of gas discharge chambers (Fig. 4 elements 405_1…405_n), each gas discharge chamber configured to hold a gas mixture including a gain medium ([0081]), to house an energy source configured to supply energy to the gas mixture ([0080]), and to produce a light beam ([0079]-[0081]), each gas discharge chamber being configured to hold a blower configured to displace the gas mixture from the energy source within the gas discharge chamber ([0080]); and an apparatus configured to control the operating speed of each blower ([0108]), the apparatus comprising: a monitoring module configured to monitor a fault status of one or more operating conditions of the light source (Fig. 4 element 350; [0108]); and an increment module configured to increase an operating speed of an appropriate blower if the fault status relating to one or more operating conditions of the light source is flagged ([0108]). Dorobantu does not explicitly disclose a decrement module configured to reduce an operating speed of an appropriate blower if the fault status relating to one or more operating conditions of the light source is clear. However, Zambon discloses optimizing blower speed in order to optimize performance for a particular mode of the device (col. 4 ll. 18-35) including a decrement module configured to reduce an operating speed of a blower arranged in a gas discharge chamber of the light source if the fault status relating to one or more operating conditions of the light source is clear and if the decreased operating speed would be at or above a baseline speed (col. 6 ll. 51-55). The advantage is improved laser pulse output parameters (col. 7 ll. 29-38). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dorobantu with a decrement module configured to reduce an operating speed of an appropriate blower if the fault status relating to one or more operating conditions of the light source is clear as disclosed by Zambon in order to improve laser pulse output parameters based on the desired operating mode.
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorobantu in view of Zambon, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Besaucele et al. (US20060227839A1), Besaucele.
Regarding claim 13, Dorobantu in view of Zambon do not explicitly disclose the decrement module and the increment module are each configured to avoid blower operating speeds at which the aliased frequency of the second harmonic of the blower interferes with a spectral feature control system associated with the light source; and the interfering blower operating speeds are dependent on a repetition rate at which the light source produces light beams. However, Besaucele discloses operating the blower to avoid speeds at which the aliased frequency of the second harmonic of the blower interferes with a spectral feature control system associated with the light source ([0032]; [0035]); and the interfering blower operating speeds are dependent on a repetition rate at which the light source produces light beams ([0035]). An advantage is to minimize the dose error caused by the blower ([0031]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Dorobantu in view of Zambon with the decrement module and the increment module are each configured to avoid blower operating speeds at which the aliased frequency of the second harmonic of the blower interferes with a spectral feature control system associated with the light source; and the interfering blower operating speeds are dependent on a repetition rate at which the light source produces light beams as disclosed by Besaucele in order to minimize the dose error caused by the blower.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KING whose telephone number is (571)270-1441. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10am-5pm MT.
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, Min Sun Harvey can be reached at (571) 272-1835. 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.
/Joshua King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828 04/18/2026
Prosecution Insights