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 Objections
Claims 6 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: “outputting the working laser beam to generate extreme ultraviolet light radiation in an EUV-generating device.”
It should read “outputting the working laser beam to generate extreme ultraviolet light (EUV) radiation in an EUV-generating device.”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5 and 11 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.
In claims , the limitation of “a first laser beam and a second laser beam following the first laser beam” seems unclear. While the specification discloses “ In a further variant of the method, the working laser beam has a first laser beam and a second laser beam following the first laser beam, wherein the second laser beam has a different wavelength and/or a different polarization than the first laser beam. Both laser beams are reflected and/or transmitted by the Verdet medium. This reflection and/or transmission takes place in separate areas of the Verdet medium and/or offset in time.” in ¶0048, the specification does not provide information about what is a first laser beam and a second laser beam following the first laser beam, the examiner understands this as the second laser being formed after the second laser. Another interpterion could be that the second laser physically follows the first. The applicant is encouraged to amend for further clarity.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 5715080 - Scerbak.
Regarding claim 1 and 7, Scerbak is directed towards a field faraday isolator. Scerbak does teach A) generating the working laser beam in a working laser source ([Col. 1 Ln. 38-40] introduce non-uniform polarization rotation across laser beams passing through the isolators.); C) irradiating a Verdet medium of a Faraday rotator using the working laser beam ([Col. 1 Ln. 19-22] The optical element, often referred to as a Faraday optic or Faraday rotator material, generally consists of a rod or block of optically transparent glass having a high Verdet constant, by way of example, Hoya FR-5 glass.); And E) changing a charge carrier density of the Verdet medium by changing a temperature of the Verdet medium using a heating element and/or a cooling element ([Col. 2 Ln. 31-34] One feature of the invention is that the Faraday isolator can be tuned to adjust the rotation of a beam passing through the isolator. Another feature is that a heat sink is provided for dissipating heat in the Faraday isolator.).
Regarding claims 2 and 8, Scerbak does teach the limitations of claims 1 and 7, respectfully. Scerbak does teach after step A): B) passing the working laser beam through a polarizer (59) between the working laser source and the Verdet medium. (Figure 19, element 70 and [Col. 1 Ln. 5-8] This invention relates to Faraday rotators and optical isolators and more particularly to a Faraday rotator and optical isolator with a uniform intense magnetic field. )
Regarding claim 3, Scerbak does teach the limitations of claim 1. Scerbak does teach after step C): D) passing the working laser beam through a polarizer (69) after the Verdet medium (Figure 19, element 70 and [Col. 1 Ln. 5-8] This invention relates to Faraday rotators and optical isolators and more particularly to a Faraday rotator and optical isolator with a uniform intense magnetic field. )
Regarding claim 4, Scerbak does teach the limitations of claim 1, Scerbak does not express teach in step E), a spatial and/or chronological change of the charge carrier density takes place in at least one area of the Verdet medium.
Regarding the spatial and/or chronological change of the charge carrier density takes place in at least one area of the Verdet medium, the applicant is respectfully advised that it has been held by the courts that where a prior art apparatus is identical or substantially identical in structure, claimed properties or functional characteristics are presumed to be inherent, and a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP § 2112.01. In this case, Scerbak discloses all the structural features of the claimed invention (as detailed above in the rejection of claim 1) and was therefore considered to anticipate the cited functional limitations.
Regarding claim 9, Scerbak does teach the limitations of claim 8, Scerbak does teach a second polarizer (69), which forms an optical isolator together with the first polarizer and the Faraday rotator, wherein the first polarizer (59) is arranged in the beam path of the working laser beam before the Faraday rotator and the second polarizer is arranged in the beam path after the Faraday rotator. (Figure 17 and [Col. 1 Ln. 16-17] A Faraday isolator consists of a Faraday rotator between an input and an output polarizer.).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Scerbak does teach the limitations of claims 1 and 7, respectfully. Scerbak does teach the working laser beam has a first laser beam (A) and a second laser beam (B) following the first laser beam, wherein the second laser beam has a different polarization than the first laser beam (Figure 19 shows that each laser beam will have a different polarization due to the first one only going through one polarizers 59 and the second been going through two polarizers 59 & 69).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 5715080 – Scerbak as applied to claims 1 and 7, respectfully above, and further in view of US 11988909 B2 - Erhard.
Regarding claims 6 and 10, Scerbak does teach the limitations of claims 1 and 7, respectfully. Scerbak does not expressly teach after step E): F) outputting the working laser beam to generate extreme ultraviolet light radiation in an EUV-generating device.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of EUV laser (Col. 7 Ln. 24-27] A driver laser arrangement for so-called laser produced plasma, LLP, EUV light sources or EUV radiation generation apparatuses have a beam source, for example one or more CO2 lasers, for generating one or more pulsed laser beams (a sequence of laser pulses).) of Erhard for the undisclosed laser of Scerbak.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20130032735 A1 – Nowak does teach a UVE laser with multiple polarizers.
US 5029953 A – Dexter does teach an ultraviolet optical isolate.
US 4856878 A – Wilson does teach magnetic configurations of faraday rotators.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE whose telephone number is (571)272-5853. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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, Steven W Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
