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.
Claim 23 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "second baffle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For this examination, claim 23 will be treated as being dependent upon claim 17.
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 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, 18, 22, 24, 26, 27, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1 (CN1839334 A).
With regards to claims 16, 18, 26, and 27, D1 discloses a micro-electromechanical system, MEMS, device 202 configured to actuate a first part 204 relative to a second part 107, the MEMS device comprising:
a first electrode 204a and a second electrode 126a configured such that, in use, application of a voltage to the first electrode and the second electrode would cause a force to be applied to the first part relative to the second part (Fig. 8 and corresponding description; electrostatic force is fundamentally Coulomb force); and
a first baffle 210 configured to prevent ingress of a fluid or transmission of radiation from an environment outside of the MEMS device into a space occupied by the first electrode and the second electrode (Figs. 5 and 6 and corresponding descriptions).
With regards to claim 22, D1 discloses wherein the first part further comprises a mirror, such that the mirror is caused to move in response to the force being applied to the first part relative to the second part (Figs, 7A and 8 and corresponding descriptions).
With regards to claim 24, D1 discloses wherein the first baffle is substantially opaque to electromagnetic radiation (Figs. 5 and 6 and corresponding descriptions).
With regards to claim 30, D1 discloses a method, comprising:
providing a substrate 105;
forming a first part 204 and a second part 107;
forming a first electrode 204a and a second electrode 126a configured such that, in use, application of a voltage to the first electrode and the second electrode would cause a force to be applied to the first part relative to the second part (Fig. 8 and corresponding description; electrostatic force is fundamentally Coulomb force); and
forming a first baffle 210 configured to prevent ingress of a fluid or transmission of radiation from an environment outside of the MEMS device into a space occupied by the first electrode and the second electrode (Figs. 5 and 6 and corresponding descriptions).
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 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 of this title, 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.
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 19, 20, 28, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1.
With regards to claim 19, D1 does not specify the claimed configuration. Nevertheless, such a modification would have been known. Those skilled in the art recognize that substituting the electrostatic Coulomb force driver with the claimed piezoelectric component would have been considered an obvious alternative for producing motion in MEMS devices in order to obtain a predictable actuation of a moveable member.
With regards to claim 20, D1 does not teach grounding the baffle. However, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the electrical ground to prevent charge accumulation and reduce unwanted electrostatic effects near the electrostatic actuator.
With regards to claim 28, D1 does not teach the claimed lithographic apparatus. However, those skilled in the art recognize that such a modification would have been obvious. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed configuration in order to selectively shape, modulate, and control radiation used within the lithographic system, yielding predictable results.
With regards to claim 29, D1 does not teach the claimed inspection and/or metrology apparatus. However, those skilled in the art recognize that such a modification would have been obvious. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 in order to provide programmable control of illumination and measurement radiation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17, 21, 23, 25 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:
None of the prior art teach the labyrinth seal of claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS H TANINGCO whose telephone number is (571)272-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm 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, Uzma Alam can be reached on 571-272-3995. 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.
/MARCUS H TANINGCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights