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. DETAILED ACTION 2. This action is responsive to the Application filed on 7/28/2023 . A filing date 7/28/2023 is acknowledged. A National Stage entry of PCT/EP2021/086729 and International Filing Date 12/20/2021 is acknowledged. The sought benefit of EP application 21159201.9 (which was filed on 2/25/2021) and EP application 21162871.4 (which was filed on 3/16/2021) is acknowledged. Claims 1 -12, 14-21 are pending in this application. Claim s 1 , 14 are independent claim s . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 3. Claims 1 -12, 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadi Yagubizade et al (US Publication 20200166854 A1, hereinafter Yagubizade ), and in view of Everhardus Mos et al (US Publication 20110196646 A1, hereinafter Mos), and Hans Butler (US Publication 20030043354 A1, hereinafter Butler). As for independent claim 1, Yagubizade discloses: A method for representing control parameter data for controlling a lithographic apparatus during a scanning exposure of an exposure field on a substrate ( Yagubizade : [0002], The present invention relates to device manufacturing using lithographic apparatus and in particular to improving the accuracy of feed-forward parameters used in device manufacturing methods ; [0010], performing a plurality of exposures on one or more substrates using a lithographic apparatus; and adapting the feed-forward parameters used to control one or more parts of the lithographic apparatus according to the method of the first aspect ) , the method comprising: … obtaining the control parameter data ( Yagubizade : [0010], there is provided a device manufacturing method comprising: performing a plurality of exposures on one or more substrates using a lithographic apparatus; and adapting the feed-forward parameters used to control one or more parts of the lithographic apparatus according to the method of the first aspect ; [0083], adapting the feed-forward parameters used to control one or more parts of the lithographic apparatus ) ; and determining, by a hardware computer, a representation of the control parameter data ( Yagubizade : [0083], adapting the feed-forward parameters used to control one or more parts of the lithographic apparatus . Yagubizade discloses managing control parameters in lithographic apparatus but does not clearly disclose using a set of periodic based functions . I n an analogous art of lithographic apparatus control parameters, Mos discloses: obtaining a set of periodic base functions, … using the set of periodic base functions (Mos: [0053], Each of the basis functions is chosen to be a polynomial, which is orthogonal over a chosen interval, and to be such that the coefficients of the polynomial can be completely determined by sampling at the roots, that is the zeros of the polynomials ; [0055], The choice of basis function or functions will be influenced by the form of the wafer. For example, where the translations Tx and Ty of the alignment are to be measured over the circular wafer, with these translations denoted in polar co-ordinates ( r,.theta .), basis functions, which are orthogonal over the intervals r=[0 1] and .theta.=[0 2.pi.] with a periodicity of 2.pi. are suitable choices. In this particular example, a combination of Chebyshev polynomials for r=[0 1] and a Fourier series for .theta.=[0 2.pi.] is appropriate ) ; Yagubizade and Mos are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, managing control parameters in lithographic apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Yagubizade using the teachings of Mos to include using a set of periodic basis function. It would provide Yagubizade’s method with enhanced capabilities of accurately control the position parameters and calibration of the lithographic apparatus (Mos - par. 7) . Further, Yagubizade and Mos do not clearly disclose each function having a different frequency and a period smaller than a dimension associated with the exposure field . I n another analogous art of managing control parameters in lithographic apparatus, Butler discloses: each base function out of the set of periodic base functions having a different frequency and a period smaller than a dimension associated with the exposure field across which the lithographic apparatus needs to be controlled (Butler: [0061], Special care must be taken for the lower frequencies. FIGS. 7A and B show the response of the double-derivative predictor when making use of the same base frequencies as in the first embodiment: 107 and 185 Hz. It can be seen that below 107 Hz, the magnitude becomes flat, while a +2 slope is required. To repair this behavior, a very low frequency of 1 rad/s is included in the base frequencies, forcing a proper response for lower frequencies as also shown in FIGS. 7A and B. Introducing a DC gain of 0 does not help here, because this can also be obtained by a +1 slope. A low, nonzero extra base frequency is therefore required ) ; Yagubizade and Mos and Butler are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, managing control parameters in lithographic apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Yagubizade using the teachings of Butler to include using a set of periodic basis function. It would provide Yagubizade’s method with enhanced capabilities of improving the lithographic apparatus by forcing a proper response for lower frequencies (Butler – par. 61). As for claim 2, Yagubizade -Mos-Butler discloses: wherein the representation of the control parameter data is further used to configure or control the lithographic apparatus ( Yagubizade : [0083], adapting the feed-forward parameters used to control one or more parts of the lithographic apparatus ) . As for claim 3, Yagubizade -Mos-Butler discloses: comprising obtaining a set of polynomial base functions, each polynomial base function having an order lower than required to represent the control parameter data and further using the set of polynomial base functions together with the set of periodic base functions in determining the representation of the control parameter data (Mos: [0053], Each of the basis functions is chosen to be a polynomial, which is orthogonal over a chosen interval, and to be such that the coefficients of the polynomial can be completely determined by sampling at the roots, that is the zeros of the polynomials ; Butler: [0067], the sine-based predictor is replaced by a predictor based on a polynomial extrapolation of previous data points ) . As for claim 4, Yagubizade -Mos-Butler discloses: the set of periodic base functions are all based on a sine function defined across the exposure field (Butler: [0067], the sine-based predictor is replaced by a predictor based on a polynomial extrapolation of previous data points ) . As for claim 5, Yagubizade -Mos-Butler discloses: wherein the set of periodic base functions are defined as two-dimensional functions in a first (X) and a second (Y) coordinate of the exposure field on the substrate ( Yagubizade : [0022], The layout of the fields on the substrate is typically a network of adjacent rectangles aligned in accordance to a Cartesian two-dimensional coordinate system (e.g. aligned along an X and an Y-axis, both axes being orthogonal to each other) ) . As for claim 6, Yagubizade -Mos-Butler discloses: wherein the set of polynomial base functions are associated with k-parameters ( Yagubizade : [0033], The APC corrections are set of k-parameters defined per field of each substrate, i.e. wafer, within a lot. The k-parameters parameterize the distortion of the imaging across the field of each substrate. For example each k-parameter could describe a certain image distortion component like one or more of: scaling error, barrel distortion, pincushion distortion, etc. The k-parameters can are also used as input to the lithographic system (scanner) to correct the distortion ) . As for claim 7, Yagubizade -Mos-Butler discloses: wherein the set of periodic base functions comprise at least a sine function having a period in the first coordinate which is half the dimension of the exposure field in the first coordinate and a period in the second coordinate which is about 40% of the dimension of the exposure field in the second coordinate (Butler: Fig. 9 and [0068], a polynomial can be fitted (having a maximum order of (n-1)), that can be used for extrapolation to the next sample ) . As for claim 8, Yagubizade -Mos-Butler discloses: wherein the set of periodic base functions comprise at least a sine function having a period in the first coordinate which is one quarter of the dimension of the exposure field in the first coordinate and a period in the second coordinate which is about 30% of the dimension of the exposure field in the second coordinate (Butler: Fig. 9 and [0068], a polynomial can be fitted (having a maximum order of (n-1)), that can be used for extrapolation to the next sample ) . As for claim 9, Yagubizade -Mos-Butler discloses: wherein the set of polynomial base functions have a maximum order of 4 in a first coordinate and a maximum order of 5 in a second coordinate (Butler: Fig. 9 and [0068], a polynomial can be fitted (having a maximum order of (n-1)), that can be used for extrapolation to the next sample ) . As for claim 10, Yagubizade -Mos-Butler discloses: wherein the combined set f(x) of periodic and polynomial base functions associated with the first coordinate is represented by the following formula: f ( x )= c 0 +c 1 x 1 +c 2 x 2 +c 3 x 3 +c 4 x 4 −c 5 sin(2π(1− x ))− c 6 sin(2.5π(1− x ))− c 7 sin(3π(1− x ))− c 8 sin(3.5π(1− x ))− c 9 sin(4π(1− x )), wherein c0-c9 are control interface parameters associated with the first coordinate (Mos: [0060]-[0065], The values of the position or overlay found from the grid can be expressed in a series of equations: Xk+1= AXk+BUk Yk = CXk where: Xk , Xk+1 are the translation vectors at each point k, k+1 as shown in FIG. 8; Yk are the output values, that are the vectors shown as dotted arrows in FIG. 8; AXk+BUk represent the linear combination of the two chosen basis functions; and C is built from the orthogonal basis functions, which is the second order Fourier series and the second order Chebyshev polynomial, in this particular example together with measurement coordinates at positions corresponding to the zeros of the functions ; Butler: [0047], With two dominant frequencies .sup..function..sup..sub.2 and .sup..function..sup..sub.2, the following equation arises: 2 ( sin ( 2 f 1 t 1 ) cos ( 2 f 1 t 1 ) sin ( 2 f 2 t 1 ) cos ( 2 f 2 t 1 ) sin ( 2 f 1 t 2 ) cos ( 2 f 1 t 2 ) sin ( 2 f 2 t 2 ) cos ( 2 f 2 t 2 ) sin ( 2 f 1 t n ) cos ( 2 f 1 t n ) sin ( 2 f 2 t n ) cos ( 2 f 2 t n ) ) ( a 1 b 1 a 2 b 2 ) = ( y ( t 1 ) y ( t 2 ) y ( t n ) ) ( 2 ) Ax = b ( 3 ) ) . As for claim 11, Yagubizade -Mos-Butler discloses: wherein the combined set f(y) of periodic and polynomial base functions associated with the second coordinate is represented by the following formula: f ( y )= c′ 0 +c′ 1 y 1 +c′ 2 y 2 +c′ 3 y 3 +c′ 4 y 4 +c′ 5 y 5 −c′ 6 sin(2.5π(1− y ))−− c′ 7 sin(3π(1− y ))− c′ 8 sin(3.5π(1− y )), wherein c′0-c′8 are control interface parameters associated with the second coordinate (Mos: [0060]-[0065], The values of the position or overlay found from the grid can be expressed in a series of equations: Xk+1= AXk+BUk Yk = CXk where: Xk , Xk+1 are the translation vectors at each point k, k+1 as shown in FIG. 8; Yk are the output values, that are the vectors shown as dotted arrows in FIG. 8; AXk+BUk represent the linear combination of the two chosen basis functions; and C is built from the orthogonal basis functions, which is the second order Fourier series and the second order Chebyshev polynomial, in this particular example together with measurement coordinates at positions corresponding to the zeros of the functions ; Butler: [0047], With two dominant frequencies .sup..function..sup..sub.2 and .sup..function..sup..sub.2, the following equation arises: 2 ( sin ( 2 f 1 t 1 ) cos ( 2 f 1 t 1 ) sin ( 2 f 2 t 1 ) cos ( 2 f 2 t 1 ) sin ( 2 f 1 t 2 ) cos ( 2 f 1 t 2 ) sin ( 2 f 2 t 2 ) cos ( 2 f 2 t 2 ) sin ( 2 f 1 t n ) cos ( 2 f 1 t n ) sin ( 2 f 2 t n ) cos ( 2 f 2 t n ) ) ( a 1 b 1 a 2 b 2 ) = ( y ( t 1 ) y ( t 2 ) y ( t n ) ) ( 2 ) Ax = b ( 3 ) ) . As for claim 12, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 1 are incorporated herein. 13. (canceled) As for claim 14, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 1 are incorporated herein. As for claim 15, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 1 are incorporated herein. As for claim 16, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 2, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 2 are incorporated herein. As for claim 17, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 3, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 3 are incorporated herein. As for claim 18, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 9, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 9 are incorporated herein. As for claim 19, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 4, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 4 are incorporated herein. As for claim 20, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 5, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 5 are incorporated herein. As for claim 21 , it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim s 7, 8 , thus the rationales for rejecting claim s 7, 8 are incorporated herein. Examiner’s Note Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Applicants are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action. Den Boef (US Publication 20 040129900 A1) Device Inspection Vystavel et al (US Publication 20 200135427 ) MEASUREMENT AND ENDPOINTING OF SAMPLE THICKNESS Singer et al (US Publication 20 070030948 ) Illumination System With Field Mirrors For Producing Uniform Scanning Energy It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck , 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson , 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Lu whose telephone number is 571-270-1410 and fax number is 571-270-2410. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 : 0 0 am to 6 :00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached on 571-27 2 - 3644 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-273-8300. 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. /H ua L u / Primary Examiner, Art Unit 21 18