Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/515,952

Transport System Having a Magnetically Levitated Transportation Stage

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 21, 2023
Examiner
WHITESELL, STEVEN H
Art Unit
1759
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
ASML Netherlands B.V.
OA Round
2 (Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
781 granted / 954 resolved
+16.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
1001
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§103
47.7%
+7.7% vs TC avg
§102
30.5%
-9.5% vs TC avg
§112
12.8%
-27.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 954 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 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 (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 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 15-18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazelton [US 6,271,606] in view of Ito [US 2009/0033901]. For claim 15, Hazelton teaches a photolithography system (see Fig. 10) comprising: a reticle transportation system (see Fig. 1), said reticle transportation system comprising: a transportation stage drive system (10, 12) comprising a pair of stators (16, 36) of a linear motor; a reticle transportation stage (28) having a length L (along the X axis, see Fig. 2c and d), a top surface (upward facing surface perpendicular the Z-axis), a bottom surface (downward facing surface perpendicular the Z-axis), and a pair of side surfaces (surfaces of component 18 that are perpendicular to the Y-axis), wherein the length L is in a moving direction (along X-axis, see col. 6 lines 53-54), the reticle transportation stage capable of being magnetically levitated and moved by said transportation stage drive system (Lorentz force actuators, see Fig. 2c and 2d and col. 5 lines 55-63), wherein a first stator of the pair of stators is disposed along a first side surface of the pair of side surfaces and a second stator of the pair of stators is disposed along a second side surface of the pair of side surfaces along the length L of the reticle transportation stage (at least three side surfaces facing the stator component 16 including both active motor components 36 and the first component body 48, see Figs. 1, 2c, and 2d); and a transportation stage controller (current source supplying current to conductor coils, see col. 5 lines 44-63) coupled to said transportation stage drive system wherein in response to signals provided thereto from said transportation stage controller, said transportation stage drive system moves said reticle transportation stage (along X-axis, see col. 6 lines 53-54); and an enclosure (14) disposed to define a clean vacuum environment (see col. 11 lines 15-25) and an external stator environment (external to chamber 14) and wherein said reticle transportation stage is disposed in the clean vacuum environment and at least portions of said transportation stage drive system are disposed in the external environment (see Fig. 2d). Hazelton fails to teach a dirty vacuum environment wherein at least portions of said transportation stage drive system are disposed in the dirty vacuum environment. Ito teaches enclosure (10 and 11, see Fig. 3) disposed to define a clean vacuum environment (10, high vacuum, see [0028]) and a dirty vacuum environment (low vacuum, see [0035]) and wherein said reticle transportation stage is disposed in the clean vacuum environment and at least portions of said transportation stage drive system are disposed in the dirty vacuum environment (see Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the dirty vacuum environment as taught by Ito in the arrangement as taught by Hazelton in order to remove debris that occurs in the stator environment to maintain cleanliness in the exposure apparatus while reducing deformation due to pressure differences. For claim 16, Hazelton teaches transportation stage drive system comprises a bearingless linear motor configured to magnetically levitate and move said reticle transportation stage (Lorentz force motor 10, see Figs. 1, 2c, and 2d). For claim 17, Hazelton teaches said enclosure is disposed around said reticle transportation stage (stage 28 in chamber 14, see Fig. 1). For claim 18, Hazelton teaches said enclosure is disposed around at least a portion of a transportation stage drive system (conductor array 38 and second component 18, see Fig. 2c). For claim 20, In the combination, Ito teaches said enclosure is disposed around said stator (stator 4 in chamber 11, see Fig. 3). For claim 21, Hazelton teaches the top surface of the reticle transportation stage is configured to accept a reticle (reticle 27 on stage 28, see Fig. 1). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed January 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues on pages 8 and 9, regarding claim 15, that the stator components of Hazelton act on the top and bottom of the stage and are therefore not disposed along a side surface the stage. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in at least Fig. 2d of Hazelton, the second component body 58 of the second component 18 that is integral with the reticle stage 28 comprises at least three side surfaces facing the stator component 16 including both active motor components 36 and the first component body 48. Conclusion 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 21, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 19, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 25, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601978
METHOD OF SETTING UP A PROJECTION EXPOSURE SYSTEM, A PROJECTION EXPOSURE METHOD AND A PROJECTION EXPOSURE SYSTEM FOR MICROLITHOGRAPHY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12585197
MONITORING UNIT AND SUBSTRATE TREATING APPARATUS INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581585
TILT STAGE, EXTREME ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT GENERATION APPARATUS, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE MANUFACTURING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571680
WAVELENGTH MEASUREMENT APPARATUS, NARROWED-LINE LASER APPARATUS, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ELECTRONIC DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12547086
PROJECTION EXPOSURE APPARATUS FOR SEMICONDUCTOR LITHOGRAPHY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+13.2%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 954 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month