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 .
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 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fiolka et al (US 2013/0100429 A1 from IDS filed).
Regarding claim 15, Fiolka discloses a lithographic apparatus (para 18, “microlithographic projection apparatus”) comprising one or more at least one deformable mirror system systems (Figs. 2-7), the at least one deformable mirror system comprising:
a first side (Figs. 2-5 and para 51, “top surface 30”) configured to receive a mirror (para 51, “multi facet mirror 26”; see Fig. 3, mirror 26 is disposed on top surface 30); and
a second side (Figs. 3-5 and para 56, “bottom surface 47”) configured to receive a plurality of actuators (see Figs. 3-5 and para 56, bottom surface 47 is configured to receive “a plurality of actuators 48”) such that the actuators are positioned to enable selective deformation of a reflective surface (para 51, “mirror facet 32”) of the mirror (multi facet mirror 26, see para 59, the actuator 48’ has increased its length, the actuator 48” has decreased its length, thus “the latter is deformed from its original state so that the top surface 30 and the bottom surface 47 are not plane anymore”; see para 60, “the deformation of the support plate 28 is transferred to the mirror facets 32. As a result of this, the orientation of the mirror facets 32 changes, as it is indicated for three mirror facets 32’, 32”, 32’” in Fig. 4”),
wherein the first side (top surface 30) of the support structure (28) comprises a plurality of pillars (para 54, “pin 38” see Figs. 3-5) arranged to support the mirror (para 54, “the mirror substrate 34 is connected to a pin 38”, see pins 38 support the mirror 26 as shown in Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 16, the lithographic apparatus (LA) of claim 15, wherein the lithographic apparatus is an EUV lithographic apparatus (para 44, “EUV projection exposure apparatus”).
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 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10-13, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiolka et al (US 2013/0100429 A1 from IDS filed).
Regarding claim 1, Fiolka discloses a deformable mirror system (Figs. 2-7), comprising a monolithic support structure (Fig. 2 and paras 51 and 52, “support plate 28” is a monolithic as shown in Fig. 2), comprising:
a first side (Figs. 2-5 and para 51, “top surface 30”) configured to receive a mirror (para 51, “multi facet mirror 26”; see Fig. 3, mirror 26 is disposed on top surface 30); and
a second side (Figs. 3-5 and para 56, “bottom surface 47”) configured to receive a plurality of actuators (see Figs. 3-5 and para 56, bottom surface 47 is configured to receive “a plurality of actuators 48”) such that the actuators are positioned to enable selective deformation of a reflective surface (32) of the mirror (26, see para 59, the actuator 48’ has increased its length, the actuator 48” has decreased its length, thus “the latter is deformed from its original state so that the top surface 30 and the bottom surface 47 are not plane anymore”; see para 60, “the deformation of the support plate 28 is transferred to the mirror facets 32. As a result of this, the orientation of the mirror facets 32 changes, as it is indicated for three mirror facets 32’, 32”, 32’” in Fig. 4”),
wherein a plurality of pillars (para 54, “pin 38”) are arranged to support the mirror (para 54, “the mirror substrate 34 is connected to a pin 38”, see pins 38 support the mirror 26 as shown in Figs. 3-5).
However, the plurality of pillars is not monolithic of the first side of the support surface as shown in Fig. 3C, pillar 330 of the present invention.
However, it was well-known to a person of ordinary skill in the art that to have a plurality of pillars that is monolithic of the first side of the support surface; an official notice of the foregoing fact is hereby taken. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a plurality of pillars that is monolithic of the first side of the support surface because monolithic body in lithography has advantages such as extremely low thermal expansion, ultra-high stiffness because single piece construction avoids joints and interfaces that can lead into unnecessary deformation, superior vibration damping because homogeneous material has excellent internal damping properties, better long-term stability because no creep or hysteresis from bolted interfaces, reduced number of error sources because eliminates alignment errors, glue layers, and differential expansion between assembled parts, and higher natural frequencies because entire structure resonates at much higher frequencies than assembled stages, as being motivated to produce high quality deformable mirror system.
Regarding claim 4, the deformable mirror system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of pillars (Fig. 3 and para 54, pins 38) is configured to provide a gap (Fig. 3 and para 54, small gap 39) between the first side (30) of the support structure (28) and the mirror (para 54 “small gap 39 remains between the mirror substrate 34 and the top surface 30 of the support plate 28”).
Regarding claim 5, the deformable mirror system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of pillars (pins 38) is arranged to form regular 2-D lattice structure across the first side (see the top surface 30 in Fig. 2, the pillars 38 are in 2D lattice structure).
Regarding claim 7, the deformable mirror system of claim 1, further comprising the mirror (26), wherein the mirror comprising comprises a plate (para 54, mirror substrate 34) having a reflective mirror surface (para 54, a reflective coating 36), and wherein the plate (34) is fixed to the first side (30) of the support structure (28, see Fig. 2-5).
Regarding claim 8, the deformable mirror system of claim 1, further comprising the plurality of actuators (para 59, actuators 48’ and 48”, but Figs. 3-7 show 6 actuators).
Regarding claim 10, the deformable mirror system of claim 8, wherein the plurality of actuators (48’, 48”) is configured to deform the support structure (see para 59, the actuator 48’ has increased its length, the actuator 48” has decreased its length, thus “the latter is deformed from its original state so that the top surface 30 and the bottom surface 47 are not plane anymore” thus the actuators deform the support structure 28).
Regarding claim 11, the deformable mirror system of claim 10, wherein the plurality of actuators (48’, 48”) is configured to deform the plurality of pillars (para 60, “deformation of the support plate 28 is transferred to mirror facets 32… the rotation of the mirror facets 32’, 32”, 32”’ which causes this change of orientation, may be accompanied by a positional change… transitional movement” thus the actuators deform the plurality of pillars).
Regarding claim 12, the deformable mirror system of claim 8, wherein one or more of the plurality of actuators (48’, 48”) is configured to apply compression or tension forces a respective force to an underside of the mirror (see para 59, the actuator 48’ has increased its length – tension forces, the actuator 48” has decreased its length – compression force).
Regarding claim 13, the deformable mirror system of claim 12, wherein a majority of the compression or tension forces from actuators in the plurality of actuators (48’, 48”) are applied configured to apply their respective force in a direction generally perpendicular to the reflective mirror surface of the mirror (see Figs. 3-7, forces are perpendicular to mirror facets 32).
Regarding claim 17, the deformable mirror system of claim 12, wherein the force is a compression force (see para 59, the actuator 48” has decreased its length – compression force).
Regarding claim 18, the deformable mirror system of claim 12, wherein the force is a tension force (see para 59, the actuator 48’ has increased its length – tension forces).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiolka et al (US 2013/0100429 A1) in view of Mansell et al (US 2011/0299183 A1).
Fiolka discloses the claimed invention as set forth above except for wherein each one of the actuators of the plurality of actuators is one of a pneumatic, hydrostatic, Lorentz, reluctance or thermal mechanical actuator.
Mansell discloses a plurality of actuators that is one of a pneumatic, hydrostatic, Lorentz, reluctance or thermal mechanical actuator (para 24, hydrostatic).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to use hydrostatic actuators over piezoelectric or hydraulic for the purpose of creating actuators with zero friction, extremely fast settling, excellent internal damping, less mechanical wear over decades, no particle generation, almost none heat generation when stage is static or slow moving, long-term stability, maintenance free and very low noise and vibration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 6 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims are allowable at least for the reason that the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest each of the plurality of cavities being configured to receive at least one of the plurality of actuators as set forth in the claimed combination.
The prior art discloses the support structure (28) comprises a plurality of cavities (Fig. 3 and para 54, “bore 40”) which extend through the second side (47), but each one of the plurality of cavities is not configured to receive at least one of the plurality of actuators as set forth in the claimed combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNCHA P CHERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-2310. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 7am to 3:30pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
11/21/2025
/EUNCHA P CHERRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872