Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/849,097

APPARATUS FOR AND METHOD OF VIBRATION CANCELLATION FOR LASER WAVELENGTH AND BANDWIDTH STABILITY

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Sep 20, 2024
Examiner
NGUYEN, HUNG
Art Unit
2882
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Cymer LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allow Rate
1313 granted / 1449 resolved
+22.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
1480
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§103
40.6%
+0.6% vs TC avg
§102
32.0%
-8.0% vs TC avg
§112
14.5%
-25.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1449 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 § 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 1-4, 6-7 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. As to claim 1, the recitation of “a second piezo-mass member...with the first vibration suppression waveform” is vague and indefinite. It is not clearly understood how the second piezo- mass member can perform both functions of receiving the first vibration suppression waveform and applying a first antivibration forces to the chassis, as claimed. Also, it is noted that the second piezo-mass member is only recited as being mechanically coupled to the chassis with no electrical or communicate coupling to the controller. Please clarify. As to claim 2, with the same reasons as set forth above, it is unclear how the fourth piezo- mass member can perform its functions of receiving the second vibration suppression waveform and applying a second antivibration force to the chassis. For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. For example: the first piezo-mass member is broadly interpreted as a piezoelectric vibration sensing element mechanically coupled to a chassis, while the second piezo-mass member/or the fourth piezo mass member is broadly interpreted as being actuated in accordance with the first vibration suppression waveform generated by the controller, regardless of the specific signal transmission path, such that the piezo-mass member applies an antivibration force to the chassis in response to the controller generated waveform. 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over (US 2002/0154669 A1). PNG media_image1.png 357 375 media_image1.png Greyscale With respect to claim 1, Spangler discloses an antivibration apparatus (see figure 4, reproduced above) for a module having a chassis for a lithography system and comprising all features of the instant claim such as: a first-piezo mass member ( PZT load cell 89; see paragraph [0030]) mechanically coupled to the chassis (mirror mount 85, 86) to be accelerated in a first direction by a vibration waveform vibrating the chassis (see paragraph [0030]) and adapted to general a signal indicate of a component of the vibration waveform in the first direction/at least in one direction (see paragraph [0085]) and a controller (102-106) arranged to receive the signal and adapted to generate a first vibration suppression waveform based at least in part on the signal (see paragraph [0100]) and a second piezo-mass member (80) mechanically coupled to the chassis and arranged to receive the first vibration suppression waveform and adapted to apply a first antivibration force to the chassis (40) in the first direction in accordance with the first vibration suppression waveform. 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. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spangler (US 2002/0154669 A1) in view of Faber et al (U.S.Pat. 12,019,197 B2). With respect to claim 7, Spangler discloses an antivibration apparatus comprising substantially all limitations of the claim. Spangler does not expressly disclose each of the piezo-mass having a piezoelectric crystal and a seismic mass. These features are well known in the art. For example, Faber et al discloses piezo-mask member (106) having a piezoelectric crystal and a seismic mass (see col.5, lines 44-45). In view of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the piezo-mass member having piezoelectric crystal and seismic mass into the antivibration apparatus of Spangler for the purpose of precisely detecting the vibration signals and thereby improving the quality of the antivibration apparatus as intended by Spangler. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-4, 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 2-4 have been found allowable since the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, neither discloses nor makes obvious a combination of an antivibration apparatus comprising among other features, a third piezo-mass member and a fourth piezo-mass member with particular functions of these elements as recited in the claims. Claim 6 has been found allowable since the prior art of record does not specifically disclose particular functions of the controller as recited in the claim. Claims 8-22 are allowed. Claims 8-22 have been found allowable since the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, neither discloses nor makes obvious a combination of an antivibration apparatus and a correspond method comprising among other features, a first sensor; a second sensor; a cancellation waveform generator; a first actuator; a second actuator with a specific arrangement between those elements and performing particular functions as recited in the claims. Prior Art Made of Record The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hulsebos (U.S.Pat. 9,665,012); Teng et al (U.S. Pat. 11,803,126) and Butler et al (U.S.Pat. 8,245,824) disclose antivibration devices and have cited for technical background. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG HENRY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:30PM. 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, Toan Minh 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. HUNG HENRY NGUYEN Primary Examiner Art Unit 2882 Hnv 1/27/26 /HUNG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 20, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601980
STAGE APPARATUS, EXPOSURE APPARATUS, METHOD OF MANUFACTURING FLAT PANEL DISPLAY, AND DEVICE MANUFACTURING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601979
MULTI-COLUMN LARGE FIELD OF VIEW IMAGING PLATFORM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601984
METROLOGY METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12591180
SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS AND SUBSTRATE PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585182
OVERLAY CORRECTION FOR ADVANCED INTEGRATED-CIRCUIT DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
91%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+9.0%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1449 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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