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 .
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.
Claim(s) 16, 21, 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sabert et al. (Sabert) (EP 3767375 in IDS).
Regarding claim 16, Sabert discloses an assembly (600, 700, Fig. 6, 7) for receiving a pump radiation (para 0068, 0084-0087) to interact with a gas medium at an interaction space to generate an emitted radiation (para 0084), the assembly comprising: an object (710) with a hollow core, wherein the hollow core has an elongated volume through the object (Fig. 7, para 0084), wherein the interaction space is located inside the hollow core (para 0084), and a heat conductive structure (620, 630, Fig. 6) that connects at multiple locations of an outside wall of the object for transferring heat generated at the interaction space away from the object (para 0083, the unwanted heat is generated by heating of the gas in the optical fiber, para 0086, the temperature setting device 720 heats or cools the gas in compartment, para 0046 heat sink).
Regarding claim 21, Sabert discloses herein the heat conductive structure has elongated shape, and the heat conductive structure comprises at least one of wires, braids, fins and springs (620, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 29, Sabert discloses wherein in operation the pump radiation and the emitted radiation propagate coaxially along an optical propagation direction and along at least a portion of the hollow core (Fig. 6, 7, the pump radiation enters one end of the optical fiber and after an interaction with gas in the optical fiber, the radiation is emitted from the opposite end).
Regarding claim 30, Sabert discloses a radiation source comprising the assembly of claim 16 (600, 700, Fig. 6, 7, para 0068, 0084).
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.
Claim(s) 17, 18 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabert et al. (Sabert) in view of Roobol et al. (Roobol) (2018/0136568).
Regarding claim 17, Sabert does not disclose wherein the assembly is configured for high harmonic generation process, wherein the gas medium is selected such that the emitted radiation is generated via high harmonic generation process, and wherein the pump radiation is selected such that the emitted radiation is generated via the high harmonic generation process. Roobol discloses an assembly configured for high harmonic generation (HHG) process, wherein the gas medium (434) is selected such that the emitted radiation is generated via high harmonic generation process, and wherein the pump radiation (431) is selected such that the emitted radiation is generated via the high harmonic generation process (Fig. 4, para 0054). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide gas medium for HHG process and pump radiation for HHG process as taught by Roobol to the invention of Sabert since such use is well known in the art and it is merely an intended use of Sabert’s invention.
Regarding claim 18, Sabert does not disclose wherein in operation power of the pump radiation is above 30 W, above 50 W, above 100 W, above 200 W, above 300 W, above 500 W, above 1000 W or above 2000 W. Roobol discloses an HHG process (Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the pump radiation above the power listed in the claim, in order for HHG processing since HHG processing would be an intended use of Sabert and discovering the optimum range of pump radiation power for HHG processing involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 28, Sabert does not disclose wherein the pump radiation and the emitted radiation have non-overlapping wavelengths. Roobol discloses in para 0054-0056 that the emitted radiation could contain multiple wavelength or monochromatic as a matter of design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce emitted radiation that have non-overlapping wavelength with the pump radiation based on the design and intended use as taught by Roobol.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabert et al. (Sabert) in view of Popmintchev et al. (Popmintchev) (2016/0315442).
Regarding claim 19, Sabert does not disclose wherein in operation the gas medium is a gas flow. Popmintchev discloses apparatus for phase-matched high harmonic generation into EUV region (Fig. 1A and 1B) with gas medium (para 0066) with gas flow controlled by diameter and vacuum pumps (para 0069). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a gas flow in the object of Sabert in order to control the temperature of the object.
Regarding claim 20, Sabert does not disclose wherein in operation at least a portion of the gas flow has a flow direction along at least a portion of the hollow core. Popmintchev discloses the gas flow has a flow direction along at least a portion of the hollow core (Fig. 1B, differential pumping 144 and 146 and the vacuum pumps at the end of the tubing). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the gas flow has a flow direction along at least a portion of the hollow core in order to control the temperature in the hollow core.
Claim(s) 22-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabert et al. (Sabert).
Regarding claim 22, although Sabert does not disclose wherein the heat conductive structure comprises at least one of Tin, Gold, Copper, Aluminum, Silicon carbide, Beryllium oxide, Tungsten, Zinc, Graphite and Silver, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the conductive structure comprising at least one of the many materials listed in the claims since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, although Sabert does not disclose wherein the object comprises a heat conductive outside surface is in contact with the heat conductive structure at the multiple locations, and the heat conductive outside surface comprises at least one of a coating, layer, tube and block, and wherein the heat conductive outside surface comprise at least one of Tin, Gold, Copper, Aluminum, Silicon carbide, Beryllium oxide, Tungsten, Zinc, Graphite, Silver, artificial diamond and any other diamond-like materials since Sabert discloses the need to control the temperature of the object (para 0046, 0083, 0086), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the outside material of the object made from one of the materials listed in the claim and in the form of a coating, layer, tube and block since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice in order to control the temperature of the object and the hollow core as taught by Sabert.
Regarding claim 25, although Sabert does not disclose wherein a total contact area between heat conductive outside surface and the object is less than 75%, less than 50%, less than 10% or less than 5% of total area of the outside wall of the object, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the amount of the outside surface so that the total contact area is less than 75%, less than 50%, less than 10% or less than 5% of total area of the outside wall of the object since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 26, although Sabert does not disclose wherein the heat conductive outside surface has a matching coefficient of thermal expansion with the object, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the material of the heat conductive outside surface matching coefficient of thermal expansion with the object so that the both the outside surface and the object can expand or contract together so that deformation of the object is avoided.
Regarding claim 27, although Sabert does not disclose wherein a total contact area between the heat conductive structure and the object is less than 75%, less than 50%, less than 10% or less than 5% of total area of the outside wall of the object, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the number of temperature control so that the total contact area is less than 75%, less than 50%, less than 10% or less than 5% of total area of the outside wall of the object since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges and removing one of the plurality of elements involve only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Abdolvand et al. (EP 3936937) discloses hollow core fiber (Fig. 7) where pump radiation interacts with gas mixture (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER B KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Toan Ton can be reached at (571) 272-2303. 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.
/PETER B KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 July 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights