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 .
Current Status
The amendment to the title is accepted, and the objection withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1 and 14 are amended.
Claim(s) 17-20 are new.
Claim(s) 1-20 are pending. With this Office Action, claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments submitted 3/26/26 have been considered, but, respectfully, are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues the rejection of the previous limitation now added to claim 1 (“altering the shape of the blank such that a side of the blank conforms to the mold”) is not inherent as examiner previously suggested because it pressing the layers does not inherently meet this limitation as there are many ways to achieve the shape citing to Irtenkauf para. 77-81 (where it also discusses heat)(see Remarks, pp.7-8) and, as best understood, the cold correction is not done after (p. 8).
With respect to this issue, the argument is not well-understood. The reference explicitly discloses heating and pressing (see para. 81, cited below) into the mold. The timing is not explicitly claimed. Examiner is obligated to take the broadest reasonable interpretation not in conflict with the specification. It is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., “altering the shape of the blank … conforms to the mold”) has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation. MPEP 2111-2111.01. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-15, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Irtenkauf (DE 102019217530).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Irtenkauf discloses A method for a main body (200) of an optical element for semiconductor lithography comprising
producing a blank (202, 203) with an optical side (see paragraphs 0077-0078 along with figures 3 and 7-11),
introducing at least one fluid channel (207, 210) into the blank (see paragraphs 0078-0080 along with figures 3 and 7-11), and
thereafter producing the main body by shaping the blank into a concave/convex configuration (see figures 3, 10 and 11) which was inherently formed by the use of a curved shaped mold surface during the pressing and heating of layers 202 and 203 (see paragraphs 0062-0063, 0071 and 0081-0085),
mold, wherein shaping the blank comprises altering the shape of the blank such that a side of the blank conforms to the mold (e.g., para. 0081 via heating & pressing, see above).
Regarding claim 2, Irtenkauf discloses wherein said shaping of the blank comprises heating the blank (see paragraph 0081),
Regarding claim 3, Irtenkauf discloses wherein said introducing comprises introducing the at least one fluid channel at a constant distance from the optical side of the blank (see paragraphs 0080-0082 along with figures 3 and 7-11),
Regarding claim 4, Irtenkauf discloses wherein said introducing comprises introducing the fluid channel such that the fluid channel defines a constant distance
(9 mm) between the fluid channel and an optical surface of the main body after the main body has been shaped onto the mold (see paragraphs 0077-0083 along with figures 3 and 7-11),
Regarding claim 5, Irtenkauf discloses wherein a cross section of the at least one fluid channel changes in response to the shaping from half of a sphere to a full sphere (see figures 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 6, Irtenkauf discloses wherein the at least one fluid channel has a circular cross section after said shaping (see paragraphs 0025, 0043, 0066 and 0080 along with figures 3, and 9-11),
Regarding claim 7, Irtenkauf discloses wherein said shaping of the blank comprises cooling a material surrounding the at least one fluid channel (see paragraphs 0071-0076),
Regarding claim 8, Irtenkauf discloses wherein said cooling would inherently impart setting a temperature of the material surrounding the at least one fluid channel to permit the material to bend during pressing and heating of the two layers during assembly (see paragraphs 0080-0082),
Regarding claim 9, Irtenkauf discloses wherein finishing the main body imparts forming an optically active area on the optical side of the main body (see paragraph 0082 along with figures 3, 10 and 11),
Regarding claim 10, Irtenkauf discloses wherein the optically active area of the optical element is formed to be spherical or aspherical during said finishing (see paragraphs 0055-0056, 0063, 0082 along with figures 1A3, 10 and 11),
Regarding claim 11, Irtenkauf discloses wherein the at least one fluid channel runs at a constant distance from the aspherical optically active area after said finishing (see paragraphs 0063 and 0082-0083),
Regarding claim 12, Irtenkauf discloses wherein the optical side of the blank comprises depressions (see Fig. 8),
Regarding claim 13, Irtenkauf discloses wherein parameters for said shaping of the blank are inherently set so that the depressions rest against the mold during said shaping (see paragraphs 0025, 0031-0033, 0067, 0070-0080 and 0083-0085 along with figures 7-11),
Regarding claim 15, Irtenkauf discloses wherein a distance between the at least one fluid channel and the optical side of the main body varies by less than 1 mm and/or less than 0.02 mm due to the fact of being set at 9 (see paragraphs 0077-0083 along with figures 3 and 7-11). Note figures 1A, 3 and 7-11 along with the associated description.
Regarding claim 17, Irtenkauf discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising removing the main body from the mold (i.e., in order to use the product, it must be removed from the mold).
Regarding claim 20, Irtenkauf discloses The method of claim 1, wherein introducing the at least one fluid channel into the blank comprises introducing the at least one fluid channel at a first distance (i.e., this distance is not quantified by the claim) from the optical side of the blank such that the fluid channel is completely within the blank (Fig. 3, 10, 11 – note the channels are fully inside the element).
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.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irtenkauf (DE 102019217530).
Regarding claim 18, Irtenkauf does not explicitly disclose The method of claim 17, further comprising removing material from the main body after removing the main body from the mold.
There was, at the time of invention, a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem. In this case, it is recognized in the art that there is sometime spillover from molds during the process.
As for the nature of the Irtenkauf reference, it is noted that there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem such that any excess can be removed before, during, or after the molding process. And these 3, finite options could have been pursued, by one of ordinary skill in the art, the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, to achieve removal after the molding would have given a person of ordinary skill good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, including improved image quality. "If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007) at 1397. Success is anticipated since it is well known, even in hobbying, to remove excess after molding and prevents underfill that can result in poor quality molded products.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try changing the time of excess to another of the finite options, and to remove excess after the molding.
Regarding claim 19, Irtenkauf does not explicitly disclose wherein said shaping comprises shaping the main body such that a distance between the at least one fluid channel and the optical side varies by less than 0.02 mm.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Considered a result effective variable (MPEP 2144.05(III)(C)), the general conditions are met in Irtenkauf because spacing is at the approximate scale and imaged depict even distribution of channels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the channel spacing for optimal cooling (Irtenkauf, para. 86).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irtenkauf (DE 102019217530) in view of Smither (US 5, 004,319).
Regarding claim 16, Irtenkauf discloses Irtenkauf discloses all of the subject claimed, note the above explanation except for having two fluid channels arranged at two different distances from the optical side of the main body.
Smither teaches it well known to use employ at least two fluid channels (67, 68, 71, 78, 87 and 88) arranged at two different distances from the optical side of the main body in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of reducing heat (see figures 5a, 5b and 5c).
Therefore, 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 fluid channel of Irtenkauf et al to include at least two fluid channels arranged at two different distances from the optical side of the main body, as taught by Smither, in order to reduce heat.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20100170782 and US-1989646 both disclose machining to fit a mold.
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER D. CARRUTH whose telephone number is (571)272-9791, who can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 Supervisory Examiner Carruth by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Director Allana L Bidder, can be reached on 571-272-5560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER D. CARRUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights