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 .
Status
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed on 3/9/2026, which amended claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-11, 13-14, 16, and 19-20. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a scanning mechanism” in claim 6; “a scanning mechanism” in claim 9; “a scanning mechanism” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Willems-Peters et al. (WO 2020/200664, Willems-Peters hereinafter; cited by 6/18/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Willems-Peters discloses a system for a lithography apparatus (Figs 1-5, paras. [0035], [0038]-[0041], [0044], [0046]-[0049], the lithographic apparatus LA comprises a substrate table WT and projection system PS), the system comprising:
a substrate table arranged to support a substrate (Figs. 1-5, paras. [0035], [0038]-[0039], substrate table WT supports substrate W);
a device, wherein the system is configurable in a configuration such that a surface of the device faces and is adjacent to the substrate table and the substrate when supported by the substrate table (Figs. 1-5, paras. [0035], [0038]-[0039], [0041], [0044], [0046]-[0049], substrate table WT supports substrate W when the substrate W faces the projection system PS); and
at least one deformable partition (Figs. 1-5, paras. [0015], [0055], [0077]-[0084], baffles 19), either: (a) extending partially from the substrate table towards the surface of the device to form a gap between the at least one deformable partition and the surface of the device when the system is in the configuration; or (b) extending partially towards the substrate table from the surface of the device to form a gap between the at least one deformable partition and the substrate table when the system is in the configuration (Figs. 1-5, paras. [0015], [0055], [0070]-[0072], [0075], [0077]-[0084], baffles 19 extend towards the substrate table WT with a clearance between the substrate table WT and the baffles), wherein at least one partition of the at least one deformable partition has a free distal end to define at least in part the gap and being frangible when subject to an axial force or deformable at its free distal end (Figs. 1-5, paras. [0015], [0055], [0077]-[0084], the ends of baffles 19 are flexible).
Regarding claim 2, Willems-Peters discloses wherein the device comprises a projection system configured to project a patterned radiation beam through an opening and onto the substrate when supported by the substrate table (Figs. 1-5, paras. [0035], [0038]-[0039], [0041], [0044], [0046]-[0049], the projection system PS projects the patterned radiation beam through an opening 16 to substrate W held on substrate table WT).
Regarding claim 3, Willems-Peters discloses wherein the device further comprises one or more components extending from the opening and at least partially defining the surface of the device when the system is in the configuration (Figs. 1-5, paras. [0035], [0038]-[0041], [0044], [0046]-[0049], the projection system PS includes mirror 18 extending from the opening of the projection system PS and facing he substrate W).
Regarding claim 6, Willems-Peters discloses further comprising a scanning mechanism configured to control relative positions of the substrate table and the device (Figs. 1-5, paras. [0035], [0038]-[0044], the substrate tale WT is connected to a linear motor positioner to accurately scan the substrate W on substrate table WT with respect to the projection system PS).
Regarding claim 7, Willems-Peters discloses wherein the at least one deformable partition extends partially towards the substrate table from the surface of the device when the system is in the configuration (Figs. 1-5, paras. [0015], [0055], [0070]-[0072], [0075], [0077]-[0084], baffles 19 extend towards the substrate table WT).
Regarding claim 8, Willems-Peters discloses wherein the at least one deformable partition that extends partially towards the substrate table from the surface of the device when the system is in the configuration comprises at least one deformable partition extending from a projection system in the vicinity of an exposure region (Figs. 1-5, paras. [0015], [0038], [0055], [0070]-[0072], [0075], [0077]-[0084], baffles 19 extend from the projection system PS towards the substrate table WT around the portion of the substrate being imaged).
Regarding claim 9, Willems-Peters discloses further comprising a scanning mechanism configured to control relative positions of the substrate table and the device (Figs. 1-5, paras. [0035], [0038]-[0044], the substrate tale WT is connected to a linear motor positioner to accurately scan the substrate W on substrate table WT in the y-direction with respect to the projection system PS) and wherein the at least one deformable partition extending from the projection system in the vicinity of an exposure region extends generally along a non-scanning direction (Figs. 1-5, paras. [0015], [0038]-[0044], [0055], [0070]-[0072], [0075], [0077]-[0084], baffles 19 extend from the projection system PS towards the substrate table WT in the Z direction, which is perpendicular to the scanning direction, the y-direction).
Regarding claim 10, Willems-Peters discloses wherein the at least one deformable partition that extends partially towards the substrate table from the surface of the device when the system is in the configuration comprises at least one deformable partition extending from a surface adjacent to a mirror used as a part of an interferometric measuring system (Figs. 1-5, paras. [0015], [0038]-[0045], [0055], [0070]-[0072], [0075], [0077]-[0084], baffles 19 extend from the projection system PS adjacent to mirrors 18 used as part of interferometry position monitoring systems PMS).
Regarding claim 11, Willems-Peters discloses further comprising a scanning mechanism configured to control relative positions of the substrate table and the device (Figs. 1-5, paras. [0035], [0038]-[0044], the substrate tale WT is connected to a linear motor positioner to accurately scan the substrate W on substrate table WT in the y-direction with respect to the projection system PS) and wherein the at least one deformable partition extending from the surface adjacent to the mirror extends generally along a scanning direction (Figs. 2-5, paras. [0067]-[0069], [0077]-[0083], [0090]-[0091], the baffles 19 have a width in the y-direction).
Regarding claim 12, Willems-Peters discloses wherein at least one deformable partition of the at least one deformable partition is resiliently deformable (Figs. 1-5, paras. [0015], [0055], [0077]-[0084], the baffles 19 are flexible).
Regarding claim 13, Willems-Peters discloses wherein the at least one resiliently deformable partition has at least a component of extent in a direction parallel to a plane of the substrate (Figs. 2-5, paras. [0067]-[0069], [0077]-[0083], [0090]-[0091], the baffles 19 have a width in the y-direction and a thickness in the x-direction along the plane of the substrate W, and curved portion 19a extends in the x-direction along the plane of the substrate W), or
wherein the at least one resiliently deformable partition is resiliently deformable in a direction generally perpendicular to the plane of the substrate (Figs. 1-5, paras. [0015], [0055], [0077]-[0084], the baffles 19 are flexible in the z-direction should the baffles interact with the substrate W), or
wherein at least one deformable partition of the at least one deformable portion comprises a frangible portion between its proximate and distal ends.
Regarding claim 15, Willems-Peters discloses a lithographic apparatus comprising the system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above, Figs 1-5, paras. [0035], [0038]-[0041], [0044], [0046]-[0049], the lithographic apparatus LA).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Funabashi (US PGPub 2016/0170313).
Regarding claim 16, Funabashi discloses a substrate table (Figs. 1-8, paras. [0021]-[0023], the stage 13 includes a chuck 16 for holding the substrate 3) comprising at least one deformable partition extending from the substrate table (Figs. 2-8, paras. [0028], [0030], [0034]-[0036], [0048], [0064]-[0066], [0068], lip seal 31 is deformable and is fixed to the chuck 16 on the outer rim of the chuck 16 extending from the chuck 16) and having at least a component of extent in a direction perpendicular to a plane of a substrate when supported by the substrate table (Figs. 2-8, paras. [0028], [0030], [0034]-[0036], [0048], [0064]-[0066], [0068], the lip seal 31 extends vertically in the Z direction), at least one partition of the at least one deformable partition having a free distal end and being frangible when subject to an axial force or deformable at its free distal end (Figs. 2-8, paras. [0028], [0030], [0034]-[0036], [0048], [0064]-[0066], [0068], the distal end of lip seal 31 is deformable).
Regarding claim 17, Funabashi discloses wherein the at least one deformable partition extends only partially around a periphery of a region of the substrate table for supporting the substrate (Fig. 8, paras. [0064], the lip seal 31 includes open holes 33 perforating the lip seal such that the lip seal only partially extends around the periphery of the portion of chuck 16 supporting substrate 3).
Regarding claim 18, Funabashi discloses wherein at least one deformable partition of the at least one deformable partition is resiliently deformable (Figs. 2-8, paras. [0028], [0030], [0034]-[0036], [0048], [0064]-[0066], [0068], lip seal 31 is deformable in response to the position change of the substrate 3).
Regarding claim 19, Funabashi discloses wherein the at least one resiliently deformable partition has at least a component of extent in a direction parallel to a plane of the substrate when supported by the substrate table or is resiliently deformable in a direction generally perpendicular to the plane of the substrate when supported by the substrate table (Figs. 2-8, paras. [0028], [0030], [0034]-[0036], [0048], [0064]-[0066], [0068], lip seal 31 is deformable in response to the position change of the substrate 3).
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willems-Peters as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Funabashi (US PGPub 2016/0170313).
Regarding claim 4, Willems-Peters does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the at least one deformable partition extends partially from the substrate table towards the surface of the device when the system is in the configuration.
Funabashi discloses at least one deformable partition extending partially from the substrate table towards the surface of the device to form a gap between the at least one deformable partition and the surface of the device when the system is in the configuration (Figs. 1-8, paras. [0019]-[0024], [0028], [0030], [0034]-[0036], [0048], [0064]-[0066], [0068], the lip seal 13 extends vertically in the Z direction from chuck 16 towards projection optical system 4 and forms a gap between the seal 13 and projection optical system 4 with substrate 3 in between), wherein at least one partition of the at least one deformable partition has a free distal end to define at least in part the gap and being frangible when subject to an axial force or deformable at its free distal end (Figs. 2-8, paras. [0028], [0030], [0034]-[0036], [0048], [0064]-[0066], [0068], the distal end of lip seal 31 is deformable),
wherein the at least one deformable partition extends partially from the substrate table towards the surface of the device when the system is in the configuration (Figs. 2-8, paras. [0028], [0030], [0034]-[0036], [0048], [0064]-[0066], [0068], the distal end of lip seal 31 is deformable and extends toward the projection optical system 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included at least one deformable partition extending partially from the substrate table towards the surface of the device to form a gap between the at least one deformable partition and the surface of the device when the system is in the configuration, wherein at least one partition of the at least one deformable partition has a free distal end to define at least in part the gap and being frangible when subject to an axial force or deformable at its free distal end, wherein the at least one deformable partition extends partially from the substrate table towards the surface of the device when the system is in the configuration as taught by Funabashi as the at least one deformable partition in the system as taught by Willems-Peters since including at least one deformable partition extending partially from the substrate table towards the surface of the device to form a gap between the at least one deformable partition and the surface of the device when the system is in the configuration, wherein at least one partition of the at least one deformable partition has a free distal end to define at least in part the gap and being frangible when subject to an axial force or deformable at its free distal end, wherein the at least one deformable partition extends partially from the substrate table towards the surface of the device when the system is in the configuration is commonly used to provide efficient separation of a substrate from a vacuum chuck when the substrate is being removed from the chuck while preventing displacement of the substrate during vacuum release (Funabashi, paras. [0008], [0046], [0061]).
Regarding claim 5, Willems-Peters as modified by Funabashi discloses wherein the at least one deformable partition that extends partially from the substrate table towards the surface of the device when the system is in the configuration extends only partially around a periphery of a region of the substrate table for supporting the substrate (Funabashi, Fig. 8, paras. [0064], the lip seal 31 includes open holes 33 perforating the lip seal such that the lip seal only partially extends around the periphery of the portion of chuck 16 supporting substrate 3).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willems-Peters as modified by Funabashi as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Maria Derksen et al. (US PGPub 2007/0258706, Maria Derksen hereinafter).
Regarding claim 5, Willems-Peters as modified by an interpretation of Funabashi does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the at least one deformable partition that extends partially from the substrate table towards the surface of the device when the system is in the configuration extends only partially around a periphery of a region of the substrate table for supporting the substrate.
Maria Derksen discloses wherein the at least one deformable partition that extends partially from the substrate table towards the surface of the device when the system is in the configuration extends only partially around a periphery of a region of the substrate table for supporting the substrate (Figs. 1, 2A-B, 8-9, paras. [0050]-[0055], [0082]-[0090], the mask M is formed of discrete segments extending from the substrate table towards the projection system PL and that each extend only partially around the periphery of the burl table 120 supporting the substrate W during use, the segments are adjustable by a drive mechanism 160, and are formed of an expandable material (see para. [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the at least one deformable partition that extends partially from the substrate table towards the surface of the device when the system is in the configuration extends only partially around a periphery of a region of the substrate table for supporting the substrate as taught by Maria Derksen included with the at least one deformable partition in the system as taught by Willems-Peters as modified by Funabashi since including wherein the at least one deformable partition that extends partially from the substrate table towards the surface of the device when the system is in the configuration extends only partially around a periphery of a region of the substrate table for supporting the substrate is commonly used to selectively minimize irradiation of the edge of the wafer and facilitate wafer loading and unloading (Maria Derksen, paras. [0010], [0059]-[0060], [0090]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US PGPub 2009/0059190, Tanaka hereinafter) in view of Funabashi (US PGPub 2016/0170313).
Regarding claim 14, Tanaka discloses a substrate table arranged to support a substrate (Figs. 1-2, 4-6, 10, 12-17, 19, 22-28, 30, 33-35, 37-38, 40, 43-44, paras. [0069], [0078]-[0080], [0100]-[0101], a wafer stage WST holds wafer W), the substrate table comprising:
a body (Figs. 1-2, 4-6, 10, 12-17, 19, 22-28, 30, 33-35, 37-38, 40, 43-44, paras. [0069], [0078]-[0080], [0100]-[0101], [0192]-[0193], a wafer stage WST);
a clamp provided on a surface of the body, the clamp configured to clamp the substrate to the clamp (Figs. 1-2, 4-6, 10, 12-17, 19, 22-28, 30, 33-35, 37-38, 40, 43-44, paras. [0069], [0078]-[0080], [0100]-[0101], [0133], [0192]-[0193], the wafer stage WST includes wafer holder WH that holds the wafer W by vacuum chuck method);
a partition extending from the surface and substantially around a periphery of the clamp and arranged to be outward, in a direction of a major plane of the substrate, of a periphery of the substrate when clamped on the clamp (Fig. 1-2, 10, 16, 19, 25-28, 30, 33-35, 37-38, 40, 43-44, paras. [0069], [0078]-[0080], [0100]-[0101], [0184]-[0185], [0192]-[0193], [0196]-[0202], [0234]-[0237], [0253], [0256], the seal unit 40W with bellows 72 extends from the wafer stage WST towards the surface of chamber 52 of projection unit PU, and the seal unit 40W surrounds the outside of water holder WH and wafer W). Although Tanaka discloses the clamp clamps the substrate by vacuum (Figs. 1-2, 4-6, 10, 12-17, 19, 22-28, 30, 33-35, 37-38, 40, 43-44, paras. [0136], [0180], [0193]), Tanaka does not appear to explicitly describe at least one gas outlet provided on a portion of the surface that is within the partition.
Funabashi discloses a clamp provided on a surface of the body, the clamp configured to clamp the substrate to the clamp (Figs. 1-8, paras. [0025]-[0028], [0031]-[0032], [0056], [0059], the attraction holes 32 are arranged on the upper surface of the center part 40 of chuck 16 and attract the substrate 3 when air is exhausted through the holes);
a partition extending from the surface and substantially around a periphery of the clamp (Figs. 2-8, paras. [0028], [0030], annular lip seal 31 is fixed to the chuck 16 on the outer rim of the chuck 16 surrounding the upper surface of center part 40 of the chuck 16 having attraction holes 32); and
at least one gas outlet provided on a portion of the surface that is within the partition (Figs. 2-7, paras. [0025], [0028], [0032]-[0033], [0039]-[0042], [0045], [0056]-[0060], the chuck 16 includes open holes 33 and attraction holes 32 within the lip seal 31, and the holes 32 and 33 provide air atmosphere into space 42 as controlled by valves 36 or 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included at least one gas outlet provided on a portion of the surface that is within the partition as taught by Funabashi within the partition in the substrate table as taught by Tanaka since including at least one gas outlet provided on a portion of the surface that is within the partition is commonly used to provide efficient separation of a substrate from a vacuum chuck when the substrate is being removed from the chuck while preventing displacement of the substrate during vacuum release (Funabashi, paras. [0008], [0046], [0061]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funabashi as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Maria Derksen et al. (US PGPub 2007/0258706, Maria Derksen hereinafter).
Regarding claim 17, although Funabashi discloses the at least one deformable partition extends around a periphery of a region of the substrate table for supporting the substrate (Figs. 2-8, paras. [0028], [0030], [0034]-[0036], [0048], [0064]-[0066], [0068], lip seal 31 is deformable and is fixed to the chuck 16 on the outer rim of the chuck 16 extending from the chuck 16), an interpretation of Funabashi does not appear to explicitly describe the at least one deformable partition extends only partially around a periphery of a region of the substrate table for supporting the substrate.
Maria Derksen discloses wherein the at least one deformable partition extends only partially around a periphery of a region of the substrate table for supporting the substrate (Figs. 1, 2A-B, 8-9, paras. [0050]-[0055], [0082]-[0090], the mask M is formed of discrete segments that each extend only partially around the periphery of the burl table 120 supporting the substrate W during use, the segments are adjustable by a drive mechanism 160, and they are formed of an expandable material (see para. [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the at least one deformable partition extends only partially around a periphery of a region of the substrate table for supporting the substrate as taught by Maria Derksen included with the at least one deformable partition in the substrate table as taught by Funabashi since including wherein the at least one deformable partition extends only partially around a periphery of a region of the substrate table for supporting the substrate is commonly used to selectively minimize irradiation of the edge of the wafer and facilitate wafer loading and unloading (Maria Derksen, paras. [0010], [0059]-[0060], [0090]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funabashi as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Tomotsugi et al. (JP2007-109703, Tomotsugi hereinafter; cited in 6/18/2024 IDS, and an English translation accompanies the 12/29/2025 Office Action and is referenced below).
Regarding claim 20, Funabashi does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the at least one partition is frangible when subject to an axial force.
Tomotsugi discloses at least one partition is frangible when subject to an axial force (the limitation “at least one partition is frangible when subject to an axial force” is functional language that recites the manner of operating the device in an apparatus claim and does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the structure taught by Funabashi as modified by Tomotsugi. See MPEP 2114. Figs. 1-2, page 4, second and sixth paragraphs, page 5, fourth and fifth paragraphs in English translation, the pusher member 2 includes a portion 21a that breaks due to a collision).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included at least one partition is frangible when subject to an axial force as taught by Tomotsugi in the at least one partition of the at least one deformable partition in the substrate table as taught by Funabashi since including at least one partition is frangible when subject to an axial force is commonly used to mitigate damage to other parts of the substrate table by allowing the breakage of the deformable parts to reduce the overall costs of repairing damages (Tomotsugi, page 4, “Advantageous-Effects” paragraph).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 3/9/2026, with respect to the objections to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive owing to the amendments to the claims. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 11-12 that “none of the claims recite means or step or a means for or step for limitation.” The Applicant contends that there is no recitation of the word “means” and the identified words known meanings as the names for structure. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 6, 9, and 11 recite “a scanning mechanism.” Although the claims do not use the term “means,” the term “mechanism” is a generic placeholder that does not have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for a structure that performs the function, and the Applicant has not provided specific arguments or evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this term to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. See MPEP 2181, subsection I(A). Additionally, the mechanism is modified by functional language and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. See MPEP 2181, subsections I(B) and I(C). Therefore, the identified claim limitations meet the 3-prong analysis and are interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Applicant’s arguments on this point have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
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 CHRISTINA A. RIDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7538. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30AM-5PM.
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, Minh-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.
/CHRISTINA A RIDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights