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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on October 2, 2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed November 13, 2023 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because Item No. 10 incorrectly lists WO 2021/00127 and should have identified WO 2021/001127. This error was corrected by the IDS filed on March 10, 2025. No further action is required. The reference has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 14 be found allowable, claim 25 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. At least claim 1 is rejected below, all other claims depend therefrom.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the projection exposure apparatus" in line 8 prior to “the apparatus is a projection exposure apparatus” in line 8.
Claims 9 and 10 recite the limitation “the scanning direction”.
Claims 12 and 13 recite the limitation “the actuator matrix”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the second region”.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of the claimed limitations above.
Claims 8 and 22 each recite a second instance of “a scanning direction” relative to respective base claims 7 and 15. It is unclear whether second instance is a further scanning direction is different from initial recitation of a scanning direction.
In claim 1, the phrase “reduce an influence of a loss in rigidity” is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “reduce an influence of a loss in rigidity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The reduction is relative to an unknown value for comparison in order to determine that the reduction has occurred.
In claims 3, 13, 22, and 24, the phrase “reduce a cumulative length” is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite, because the claimed reduction is relative to an unknown value for comparison in order to determine that the reduction has occurred.
In claim 4, the phrase “a minimal area” is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite, because the claimed minimum is relative to an unknown value for comparison in order to determine that the minimum has been reached.
In claim 5, the phrase “a reduced number of holes” is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite, because the claimed reduction is relative to an unknown value for comparison in order to determine that the reduction has occurred.
In claims 7, 14, 15, and 25, the phrase “a minimal cumulative length” is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite, because the claimed minimum is relative to an unknown value for comparison in order to determine that the minimum has been reached.
For the purposes of examining, the term of degree is understood to be relative to other elements of the actuator device.
In claim 3 and 13, the phrase “the holes are configured to reduce a cumulative length of edge sections of the holes” is unclear because the holes reduce the length of themselves. The Examiner suggest rewriting the phrase as: --the holes are configured to reduce a cumulative length of a corresponding edge section of the actuator pad--
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-15 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hakvoort et al. [US 2018/0164581].
For claim 1, Hakvoort teaches an apparatus, comprising: a projection objective (PO, see Fig. 6), comprising: a component (1, see Figs. 1 and 2) which comprises an optical element (reflective bi-layer 6) and an actuator (arrangement where regions are driving independently, see Fig. 1), wherein: the optical element and the actuator are force-fittingly connected with each other (fitted at layer 20); the actuator is configured to at least locally deform the optical element (deformation in Z axis, see Fig. 5); the actuator is configured to reduce an influence of a loss in rigidity at peripheries delimiting the actuator on an imaging quality of the projection exposure apparatus (interconnect layer 10 reduces height discrepancy shown in Fig. 3, see Fig. 5); and the apparatus is a projection exposure apparatus (see Fig. 6).
For claim 2, Hakvoort teaches the actuator comprise an actuator matrix which comprises two actuator pads (array shown in Fig. 2).
For claim 3, Hakvoort teaches the actuator matrix comprises holes configured to contact the actuator pads (gap region 11, see Figs. 1 and 2), and the holes are configured to reduce a cumulative length of edge sections of the holes extending on an axis parallel to a scanning direction of the apparatus (length of the gap 11 in Y direction reduces the length of the edge portions of electros 9a and 9b, see Fig. 2).
For claim 4, Hakvoort teaches at least some of the holes have a minimal area (gap region 11 is smaller than the electrode diameter, see claims 14 and 15).
For claim 5, Hakvoort teaches the actuator matrix has a reduced number of holes on an axis extending parallel to the scanning direction (more gaps between the electrodes in the X direction than in the Y direction, see Fig. 2).
For claim 6, Hakvoort teaches the actuator pads have a triangular, a rectangular or a hexagonal geometry (see Fig. 2).
For claim 7, Hakvoort teaches the apparatus has a minimal cumulative length of peripheral sections of the actuator extending on an axis parallel to a scanning direction of the apparatus (smallest length of the sides of the actuator electrode 9 is along the Y direction, see Fig. 2).
For claim 8, Hakvoort teaches outer peripheries of the actuators are aligned, at least in sections, at an angle to a scanning direction of the apparatus (sides along the y direction, see Fig. 2).
For claim 9, Hakvoort teaches the actuator comprises a peripheral contour meandering around the scanning direction of the apparatus (hexagonal shape is a meander with at least one side along the Y direction, see Fig. 2).
For claim 10, Hakvoort teaches a straight peripheral structure of the actuator is aligned at an angle to the scanning direction of the apparatus (sides of electrodes not in the Y direction, see Fig. 2).
For claim 11, Hakvoort teaches the actuator comprises a separately controllable section configured to correct loss of rigidity (adjacent electrode for controlling charge across the gap region, see Figs. 2 and 5 and [0088] and [0089]).
For claim 12, Hakvoort teaches the section is formed as a peripheral actuator pad in an actuator pad in the peripheral region of the actuator matrix and is controllable independently of the second region of the actuator pad formed as a partial actuator pad and is configured for correcting the parasitic deformations caused by the loss in rigidity (adjacent electrode for controlling charge across the gap region to reduce kinks, see Figs. 2, 3, and 5 and [0081], [0088], and [0089]).
For claim 13, Hakvoort teaches the actuator matrix comprises holes configured to contact the actuator pads (gap region 11, see Figs. 1 and 2), and the holes are configured to reduce a cumulative length of edge sections of the holes extending on an axis parallel to a scanning direction of the apparatus (length of the gap 11 in Y direction reduces the length of the edge portions of electros 9a and 9b, see Fig. 2).
For claim 14, Hakvoort teaches the apparatus has a minimal cumulative length of peripheral sections of the actuator extending on an axis parallel to a scanning direction of the apparatus (smallest length of the sides of the actuator electrode 9 is along the Y direction, see Fig. 2).
For claim 15, Hakvoort teaches the actuator comprise an actuator matrix which comprises two actuator pads (array shown in Fig. 2), and the apparatus has a minimal cumulative length of peripheral sections of the actuator extending on an axis parallel to a scanning direction of the apparatus (smallest length of the sides of the actuator electrode 9 is along the Y direction, see Fig. 2).
For claim 21, Hakvoort teaches the actuator comprises a separately controllable section configured to correct loss of rigidity (adjacent electrode for controlling charge across the gap region, see Figs. 2 and 5 and [0088] and [0089]).
For claim 22, Hakvoort teaches the actuator matrix comprises holes configured to contact the actuator pads (gap region 11, see Figs. 1 and 2), and the holes are configured to reduce a cumulative length of edge sections of the holes extending on an axis parallel to a scanning direction of the apparatus (length of the gap 11 in Y direction reduces the length of the edge portions of electros 9a and 9b, see Fig. 2).
For claim 23, Hakvoort teaches the actuator comprise an actuator matrix which comprises two actuator pads (array shown in Fig. 2), and the actuator comprises a separately controllable section configured to correct loss of rigidity (adjacent electrode for controlling charge across the gap region, see Figs. 2 and 5 and [0088] and [0089]).
For claim 24, Hakvoort teaches the actuator matrix comprises holes configured to contact the actuator pads (gap region 11, see Figs. 1 and 2), and the holes are configured to reduce a cumulative length of edge sections of the holes extending on an axis parallel to a scanning direction of the apparatus (length of the gap 11 in Y direction reduces the length of the edge portions of electros 9a and 9b, see Fig. 2).
For claim 25, Hakvoort teaches the apparatus has a minimal cumulative length of peripheral sections of the actuator extending on an axis parallel to a scanning direction of the apparatus (smallest length of the sides of the actuator electrode 9 is along the Y direction, see Fig. 2), and the actuator comprises a separately controllable section configured to correct loss of rigidity (adjacent electrode for controlling charge across the gap region, see Figs. 2 and 5 and [0088] and [0089]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kwan et al. [US 2018/0196253], Dinger et al. [US 2014/0285783], Bruchmann et al. [US 2011/0222178], and Ealey [US 2006/0050421] each teach actuator assemblies for deformable mirrors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/Steven H Whitesell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759