Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/791,608

SHUTTER DEVICE, LITHOGRAPHY APPARATUS, AND ARTICLE MANUFACTURING METHOD

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Aug 01, 2024
Priority
Aug 08, 2023 — JP 2023-129513
Examiner
WHITESELL, STEVEN H
Art Unit
1759
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
9m
Est. Remaining
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allowance Rate
782 granted / 956 resolved
+16.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
1004
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
78.8%
+38.8% vs TC avg
§102
12.7%
-27.3% vs TC avg
§112
5.1%
-34.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 956 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, identifying claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11, 19, and 20 in the reply filed on March 27, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 7, 10, and 12-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant is reminded that claims currently withdrawn from consideration as a result of the restriction requirement that require all the limitations of an allowable claim will be rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01. 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 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Irie [US 2008/0129976]. For claim 1, Irie teaches a shutter device (10, see Figs. 1A-2B) for passing and blocking light, comprising: a rotation source (17) configured to rotationally drive a rotation shaft; a hub (boss 15 and plate 16 or boss 21 and plate 22) connected to the rotation shaft; and a shutter blade (11-13) fixed to the hub, wherein the hub includes a holding surface that holds the shutter blade (surface of the protrusions), and the holding surface includes a first region belonging to a predetermined plane (surface of one of the protrusions 15x or 21x extending from the boss 15 or 21) and a second region separated from the predetermined plane (surface of one of the protrusions 16x or 22x extending from the plate 15 or 22), and the shutter blade contacts the first region and the second region while being fixed to the hub (see Figs. 1E and 2B). For claim 2, Irie teaches the shutter blade is fastened to the hub by a first fastener in the first region, and is fastened to the hub by a second fastener in the second region (the bending of the protrusions 15x, 16x, 21x, and 22x act to fasten though friction by applying pressure to the shutter blade, see [0031]-[0034] and [0038]-[0040]). For claim 4, Irie teaches the shutter blade is deformed by a force receiving from the first fastener, the second fastener, and the hub (deformation of the blade, see Figs. 1E and 2B). For claim 5, Irie teaches the shutter blade includes a contact portion that contacts the first region and a contact portion that contacts the second region while being fixed to the hub (portions in contact, see Figs. 1E and 2B). For claim 8, Irie teaches the holding surface further includes a third region (21b, see Fig. 2B), the second region (22b) is arranged between the first region (21a) and the third region, the first region and the third region belong to a virtual plane (see Fig. 2B), the second region does not belong to the virtual plane (see Fig. 2B), and the shutter blade is fixed to the hub by a third fastener in the third region (the bending of the protrusions 15x, 16x, 21x, and 22x act to fasten though friction by applying pressure to the shutter blade, see [0031]-[0034] and [0038]-[0040]). For claim 19, Irie teaches a lithography apparatus (see Fig. 4) for transferring a pattern of an original (R) to a substrate (W) using light, comprising: a shutter device (10) defined in claim 1 and arranged to control irradiation of the light to the substrate. For claim 20, Irie teaches an article manufacturing method comprising: transferring a pattern of an original to a substrate using a lithography apparatus defined in claim 19; and processing the substrate having undergone the transferring to obtain an article (method of manufacturing the device, see Fig. 6). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 3, 6, 9, and 11 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: Irie teaches using bolts 101 to secure the shutter blade to the hub, but fails to teach “the shutter blade includes a first opening and a second opening, and the first fastener includes a first bolt that extends through the first opening, and the second fastener includes a second bolt that extends through the second opening” as recited in claim 3. Further it would not have been obvious to provide the bolts taught by Irie in the first or second region because the bolts would fail to penetrate the plate, the shutter and the boss, and thereby render the fastener insufficient for securing the shutter to the hub. Irie teaches the first region of the holding surface is formed by a flat surface (see flat portions of 15a or 21x in Figs. 1E and 2B), but fails to teach “the second region of the holding surface is formed by a curved surface” as recited in claim 6 and 9. There does not appear to be an obvious reason for providing a curved region in the protrusions of Irie. Irie fails to teach “the second region is recessed with respect to the first region and the third region” as recited in claim 11, but instead shows the surfaces of the protrusions are spaced apart from each other and separated by the shutter blade (see Figs. 1E and 2B). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hamilton [US 1,210,063], Jenkins [US 1,308,494], Lehman [US 1,349,215], Woodier [US 3,966,313], Phillips [US 4,350,428], Wang et al. [US 2005/0151952], Krebs et al. [US 2012/0162626], Sano et al. [US 2016/0370708], Hatamoto [US 2017/0255106], and Nakamura et al. [JP 2018-045146] each teach shutter devices with similar function. 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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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

Aug 01, 2024
Application Filed
May 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12638784
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DIFFRACTION-BASED OVERLAY MEASUREMENT
2y 6m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12640532
PULSE STRETCHER AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE MANUFACTURING METHOD
2y 1m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12638785
METHODS FOR MEASURING AT LEAST ONE TARGET ON A SUBSTRATE AND ASSOCIATED APPARATUSES AND SUBSTRATE
2y 1m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12625434
LITHOGRAPHY SCANNER THROUGHPUT
2y 5m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12625436
LITHOGRAPHY APPARATUS
1y 10m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+13.3%)
2y 7m (~9m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 956 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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