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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made that the instant application is a national stage entry of application PCT/US2023/033553, filed on 9/23/2023, which claims priority from US provisional application 63/426985, filed on 11/21/2022, and from US provisional application 63/410025, filed on 9/926/2022.
Claim Objections
Claims 26 and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 26, line 2, “a length in a diameter” should be changed to --a diameter-- to improve grammar.
Claim 31, line 3, “the first metal” should be changed to --the first material-- to correct antecedence.
Appropriate correction is required to place claims in better form.
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 torsionally stiff elongate member” in lines 4-7 in claim 1; “a first mechanical coupling member” in line 8 of claim 1; “a second mechanical coupling member” in line 9 of claim 1; “a receptacle member” in line 2 in claim 2; “an elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element” in lines 8-13 in claim 17; “a torsionally stiff elongate member” in lines 2-7 in claim 28.
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 § 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 5-7 and 19 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.
Regarding claims 5 and 19, the term “high” in claim 5, line 2 and claim 19, line 2 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The strength of the nickel alloy material is rendered indefinite by the use of the term “high” because neither the claims nor the specification provide a standard for determining what strengths would qualify as “high strength;” therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim scope would not be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art. For the purposes of examination, the limitations are being interpreted as meaning wherein the torsionally stiff elongate member comprises a nickel alloy and wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element comprises a bellows comprising a nickel alloy. Thus, claims 5 and 19 and all claims depending therefrom are rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 31 depends from claim 20 and recites “wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element comprises a first material and the guide comprises a second material different form the first metal.” Claim 20 recites “wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element comprises a nickel alloy and the guide comprises leaded brass or leaded bronze” in lines 3-5, which already requires the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element to comprise a different material from the material of the guide. Therefore, claim 31 does not further limit the subject matter of parent claim 20. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Thus, claim 31 is rejected for being of improper dependent form. Appropriate correction is required.
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 17, 18, 25-27, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ershov et al. (US PGPub 2007/0280308, Ershov hereinafter) in view of Vezain (US Patent No. 5,214,970) in view of Schenck (DE2740456, cited by 12/20/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 17, Ershov discloses a lithographic apparatus (paras. [0003], [0036] a lithography apparatus light source) comprising:
an optical pulse stretcher including an enclosure adapted to contain a sealed and pressurized environment and including a wall, the wall having a through-the-wall adjuster (Figs. 1-11, paras. [0019]-[0022], [0024], [0028], [0034], the pulse stretcher includes lower housing 60 and upper housing 60’ that seals the mirrors 20B, 20D, 20A, 20C inside the walls of the housings in a controlled purge gas environment. An adjustment mechanism comprising a set screw 40 that is adjusted by a shaft extending through a sealed opening in the housing 60);
an optical component positioned in the enclosure, at least one of a position and an orientation of the optical component being adjustable in a first plane (Figs. 1-11, paras. [0019]-[0022], [0024], [0028]-[0034], the pulse stretcher includes lower housing 60 and upper housing 60’ with the mirrors 20B, 20D, 20A, 20C. The mirrors are adjusted by the adjustment mechanism). Ershov does not appear to explicitly describe adjustment by application of a torque to the optical component in a first plane, an elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element positioned at least partially in the enclosure and having a first end mechanically coupled to the optical component and a second end mechanically coupled to the through-the-wall adjuster, wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element is arranged so that rotation in a second plane by manipulation of the through-the-wall adjuster applies the torque to the optical component in the first plane, the first plane and the second plane being substantially orthogonal.
Vezain discloses an optical component positioned in the enclosure, at least one of a position and an orientation of the optical component being adjustable by application of a torque to the optical component in a first plane (Figs. 1-2, abstract, col. 2, lines 26-45, col. 3, lines 8-68, rotary stepper motor 10 is on the outside of a wall, and lens 13 is arranged inside the wall, and the rotary stepper motor 10 is coupled to lens 13 such that rotations of the stepper motor 10 applies torque resulting in displacement of the lens 13 in a translation direction);
an elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element positioned at least partially in the enclosure (Figs. 1-2, abstract, col. 2, lines 26-45, col. 3, lines 8-68, coupling device 1 includes a bellows 5 that is stiff in torsion inside the enclosure) and having a first end mechanically coupled to the optical component (Figs. 1-2, abstract, col. 2, lines 26-45, col. 3, lines 8-68, coupling device 1 has end flange 3 coupled to lens 13) and a second end coupled to the through-the-wall adjuster (Figs. 1-2, abstract, col. 2, lines 26-45, col. 3, lines 8-68, coupling device 1 has end flange 2 coupled to stepper motor 10 outside the wall), wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element is arranged so that rotation in a second plane by manipulation of the through-the-wall adjuster applies the torque to the optical component in the first plane (Figs. 1-2, abstract, col. 2, lines 26-45, col. 3, lines 8-68, coupling device 1 has two end flanges 2 and 3 and includes a bellows 5 that is stiff in torsion. The end flange 2 is coupled to rotary stepper motor 10 on the outside of a wall, and the end flange 3 is coupled to lens 13 such that rotations of the stepper motor 10 applies torque resulting in displacement of the lens 13 in a translation direction).
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 the optical component being adjustable by application of a torque to the optical component in a first plane, an elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element positioned at least partially in the enclosure and having a first end mechanically coupled to the optical component and a second end coupled to the through-the-wall adjuster, wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element is arranged so that rotation in a second plane by manipulation of the through-the-wall adjuster applies the torque to the optical component in the first plane as taught by Vezain for the optical component in the lithographic apparatus as taught by Ershov since including the optical component being adjustable by application of a torque to the optical component in a first plane, an elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element positioned at least partially in the enclosure and having a first end mechanically coupled to the optical component and a second end coupled to the through-the-wall adjuster, wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element is arranged so that rotation in a second plane by manipulation of the through-the-wall adjuster applies the torque to the optical component in the first plane is commonly used to provide a rotational coupling device that minimizes mechanical stress disturbances for accurate positioning (Vezain, col. 1, lines 43-60).
Ershov as modified by Vezain does not appear to explicitly describe the first plane and the second plane being substantially orthogonal.
Schenck discloses wherein the elongate transfer element is arranged so that rotation in a second plane by manipulation of the through-the-wall adjuster applies the torque to the optical component in the first plane, the first plane and the second plane being substantially orthogonal (Figure, abstract, paras. [0003], [0008]-[0012], the eyepiece 6 and the lens 1 are arranged in substantially orthogonal planes on opposite sides of a wall 9 and coupled by an elongated image guide 4 that permits rotation).
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 the first plane and the second plane being substantially orthogonal as taught by Schenck as the first plane and the second plane for the optical component in the lithographic apparatus as taught by Ershov as modified by Vezain since including the first plane and the second plane being substantially orthogonal is commonly used to provide comprehensive visibility inside sealed spaces to a remote observer independently of the position of the observer (Schenck, paras. [0002]-[0004], [0006], [0008]).
Regarding claim 18, Ershov as modified by Vezain in view of Schenck discloses wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element comprises an electroformed bellows (the limitation “an electroformed bellows” is a product-by-process claim, and the bellows taught by Vezain appears to be substantially identical to the electroformed bellows. See MPEP 2113. Vezain, Figs. 1-2, abstract, col. 2, lines 26-45, col. 3, lines 8-68, coupling device 1 has two end flanges 2 and 3 and includes a metal bellows 5 that is stiff in torsion).
Regarding claim 25, Ershov as modified by Vezain in view of Schenck discloses wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element has a length in a range of about 15 mm to about 40 mm (Vezain, Figs. 1-2, abstract, col. 3, lines 8-68, bellows 5 arranged around wire 4 that is 30 mm long).
Regarding claim 26, although Ershov as modified by Vezain in view of Schenck discloses the general conditions of wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element has a length in diameter of about 15 mm (Vezain, Figs. 1-2, abstract, col. 3, lines 8-68, bellows 5 has a diameter of 15 mm), Ershov as modified by Vezain in view of Schenck does not appear to explicitly recite wherein the diameter is about 5 mm to about 10 mm. Since Vezain discloses the general conditions of the claim language, 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 optimized the range of the length of the diameter of the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element in the lithographic apparatus as taught by Ershov as modified by Vezain in view of Schenck to have obtained the range of about 5 mm to about 10 mm since optimizing the range of the length of the diameter to obtain wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element has a length in diameter of about 5 mm to about 10 would have only required routine skill to determine the optimal dimension of the diameter of the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element that allows for the desired optical element mobility (Vezain, col. 1, lines 29-42) in a compact structure. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 27, although Ershov as modified by Vezain in view of Schenck discloses the general conditions of wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element has a radius of curvature (Vezain, Figs. 1-2, abstract, col. 3, lines 8-68, bellows 5 has a diameter, and as modified by Schenck, Figure, abstract, paras. [0003], [0008]-[0012], the image guide 4 has a radius of curvature to connect eyepiece 6 and lens 1), Ershov as modified by Vezain in view of Schenck does not appear to explicitly describe the radius of curvature in a range of about 10 mm to about 25 mm. Since Ershov as modified by Vezain in view of Schenck discloses the general conditions of the claim language, 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 optimizing the radius of curvature of the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element in the lithographic apparatus as taught by Ershov as modified by Vezain in view of Schenck to have obtained the range of the radius of curvature to about 10 mm to about 25 mm since optimizing the radius of curvature such that wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element has a radius of curvature in a range of about 10 mm to about 25 mm would have only required routine skill to determine the optimal radius of curvature of the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element that allows for the desired mobility and flexibility (Schenck, paras. [0006], [0008]) in a compact structure. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 29, Ershov as modified by Vezain in view of Schenck discloses wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element is substantially free of any lubricant (Vezain, Figs. 1-2, abstract, col. 3, lines 8-68, the coupling device 1 with bellows 5 does not include lubricant).
Regarding claim 30, Ershov as modified by Vezain in view of Schenck discloses wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element contains only metallic or ceramic materials that will not contaminate the enclosure when the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element is exposed to scattered or direct deep ultraviolet radiation (the limitation “that will not contaminate the enclosure when the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element is exposed to scattered or direct deep ultraviolet radiation” is functional language that recites the manner of operating the apparatus claim that does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the structure taught by Ershov as modified by Vezain in view of Schenck. See MPEP 2114. Vezain, Figs. 1-2, abstract, col. 2, lines 26-45, col. 3, lines 8-68, coupling device 1 includes a metal bellows 5 that is stiff in torsion).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ershov as modified by Vezain in view of Schenck as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Borchers (US PGPub 2022/0268808).
Regarding claim 18, Ershov as modified by Vezain in view of Schenck discloses wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element comprises a bellows (Vezain, Figs. 1-2, abstract, col. 2, lines 26-45, col. 3, lines 8-68, coupling device 1 has two end flanges 2 and 3 and includes a metal bellows 5 that is stiff in torsion), but Ershov as modified by Vezain in view of Schenck does not appear to explicitly describe an electroformed bellows.
Borchers discloses wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element comprises an electroformed bellows (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0016], [0019], [0048], [0065], [0069], the bellows are fabricated by electroformation).
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 an electroformed bellows as taught by Borchers as the bellows in the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element in the lithographic apparatus as taught by Ershov as modified by Vezain in view of Schenck since including an electroformed bellows is commonly used to produce a thin, monolithic bellows with the desired strength to withstand differential pressure (Borchers, para. [0069]).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, Ershov as modified by Vezain in view of Schenck discloses wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element comprises a bellows (Vezain, Figs. 1-2, abstract, col. 2, lines 26-45, col. 3, lines 8-68, coupling device 1 has two end flanges 2 and 3 and includes a metal bellows 5 that is stiff in torsion), but Ershov as modified by Vezain in view of Schenck does not appear to explicitly describe the bellows comprising a high strength nickel alloy.
Borchers discloses wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element comprises a bellows comprising a high strength nickel alloy (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0037], [0045], the bellows 120 is nickel-cobalt alloy).
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 a bellows comprising a high strength nickel alloy as taught by Borchers as the as the bellows in the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element in the lithographic apparatus as taught by Ershov as modified by Vezain in view of Schenck since including wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element comprises a bellows comprising a high strength nickel alloy is commonly used to provide a thin, monolithic bellows with the desired strength to withstand differential pressure (Borchers, para. [0069]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 8-16 are allowed.
Claims 5-7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious a guide with an arcuate channel, the arcuate channel having a first channel end and a second channel end; a torsionally stiff elongate member at least partially positioned in the arcuate channel and having an arcuate configuration conforming to an interior of the arcuate channel, the torsionally stiff elongate member having a first end rotatable in a first plane and a second end rotatable in a second plane substantially orthogonal to the first plane, whereby rotation of the first mechanical coupling member in the first plane causes rotation of the second coupling member in the second plane. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of claim 1 render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record.
The dependent claims are likewise allowable by virtue of their dependency upon an allowable independent claim as stated above.
Vezain discloses an elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element positioned at least partially in the enclosure (Figs. 1-2, abstract, col. 2, lines 26-45, col. 3, lines 8-68, coupling device 1 includes a bellows 5 that is stiff in torsion inside the enclosure) and having a first end mechanically coupled to the optical component (Figs. 1-2, abstract, col. 2, lines 26-45, col. 3, lines 8-68, coupling device 1 has end flange 3 coupled to lens 13) and a second end coupled to the through-the-wall adjuster (Figs. 1-2, abstract, col. 2, lines 26-45, col. 3, lines 8-68, coupling device 1 has end flange 2 coupled to stepper motor 10 outside the wall), wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element is arranged so that rotation in a second plane by manipulation of the through-the-wall adjuster applies the torque to the optical component in the first plane (Figs. 1-2, abstract, col. 2, lines 26-45, col. 3, lines 8-68, coupling device 1 has two end flanges 2 and 3 and includes a bellows 5 that is stiff in torsion. The end flange 2 is coupled to rotary stepper motor 10 on the outside of a wall, and the end flange 3 is coupled to lens 13 such that rotations of the stepper motor 10 applies torque resulting in displacement of the lens 13 in a translation direction). Vezain does not describe or render obvious a guide with an arcuate channel, the arcuate channel having a first channel end and a second channel end; a torsionally stiff elongate member at least partially positioned in the arcuate channel and having an arcuate configuration conforming to an interior of the arcuate channel.
Hol et al. (DE 102018130290, cited by 12/20/2024 IDS) discloses a bellows and a mounting sleeve in articulated legs for supporting facet mirrors, and the articulated legs have a flexural rigidity that causes the mirrors to tilt (Fig. 4, paras. [0114], [0116], bellows 14), but Hol does not describe or render obvious a guide with an arcuate channel, the arcuate channel having a first channel end and a second channel end; a torsionally stiff elongate member at least partially positioned in the arcuate channel and having an arcuate configuration conforming to an interior of the arcuate channel.
Schenck discloses an arcuate elongate member that allows rotation in a second plane by manipulation an adjuster that applies the torque to the optical component in the first plane, the first plane and the second plane being substantially orthogonal (Figure, abstract, paras. [0003], [0008]-[0012], the eyepiece 6 and the lens 1 are arranged in substantially orthogonal planes on opposite sides of a wall 9 and coupled by an elongated image guide 4 that permits rotation). Schenck does not describe or render obvious a guide with an arcuate channel, the arcuate channel having a first channel end and a second channel end; a torsionally stiff elongate member at least partially positioned in the arcuate channel and having an arcuate configuration conforming to an interior of the arcuate channel, the torsionally stiff elongate member having a first end rotatable in a first plane and a second end rotatable in a second plane substantially orthogonal to the first plane, whereby rotation of the first mechanical coupling member in the first plane causes rotation of the second coupling member in the second plane.
Borchers discloses a bellows that allows rotation between a mount and a component, and the rotation causes torsional elastic deformation in the bellows (Fig. 1, paras. [0035]-[0037], [0042], [0051], [0058], [0062]-[0063], [0069]), but Borchers does not describe or render obvious a guide with an arcuate channel, the arcuate channel having a first channel end and a second channel end; a torsionally stiff elongate member at least partially positioned in the arcuate channel and having an arcuate configuration conforming to an interior of the arcuate channel, the torsionally stiff elongate member having a first end rotatable in a first plane and a second end rotatable in a second plane substantially orthogonal to the first plane, whereby rotation of the first mechanical coupling member in the first plane causes rotation of the second coupling member in the second plane.
Wang et al. (CN1044838816) discloses a bellows connecting the light focusing system to a vacuum box (Fig. 2, bellows 5), but Wang does not describe or render obvious a guide with an arcuate channel, the arcuate channel having a first channel end and a second channel end; a torsionally stiff elongate member at least partially positioned in the arcuate channel and having an arcuate configuration conforming to an interior of the arcuate channel, the torsionally stiff elongate member having a first end rotatable in a first plane and a second end rotatable in a second plane substantially orthogonal to the first plane, whereby rotation of the first mechanical coupling member in the first plane causes rotation of the second coupling member in the second plane.
Claims 20-24 and 28 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.
Claim 31 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious further comprising a guide having an arcuate channel arranged to support and laterally stabilize the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element and wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element comprises a nickel alloy and the guide comprises leaded brass or leaded bronze. These limitations in combination with all of the other limitations of the parent claim would render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record if rewritten.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious further comprising an arcuate channel arranged along at least part of a length of the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element to limit lateral movement or buckling of the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element. These limitations in combination with all of the other limitations of the parent claim would render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record if rewritten.
Regarding claim 28, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element comprises a torsionally stiff elongate member partially positioned in a guide having an arcuate channel, the torsionally stiff elongate member positioned to conform to an interior of the arcuate channel, the torsionally stiff elongate member having a first end rotatable in the first plane and a second end rotatable in the second plane, the arcuate channel and the torsionally stiff elongate member being spaced apart by a clearance. These limitations in combination with all of the other limitations of the parent claim would render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record if rewritten.
The dependent claims are likewise allowable by virtue of their dependency upon an allowable independent claim as stated above.
Vezain discloses an elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element positioned at least partially in the enclosure (Figs. 1-2, abstract, col. 2, lines 26-45, col. 3, lines 8-68, coupling device 1 includes a bellows 5 that is stiff in torsion inside the enclosure) and having a first end mechanically coupled to the optical component (Figs. 1-2, abstract, col. 2, lines 26-45, col. 3, lines 8-68, coupling device 1 has end flange 3 coupled to lens 13) and a second end coupled to the through-the-wall adjuster (Figs. 1-2, abstract, col. 2, lines 26-45, col. 3, lines 8-68, coupling device 1 has end flange 2 coupled to stepper motor 10 outside the wall), wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element is arranged so that rotation in a second plane by manipulation of the through-the-wall adjuster applies the torque to the optical component in the first plane (Figs. 1-2, abstract, col. 2, lines 26-45, col. 3, lines 8-68, coupling device 1 has two end flanges 2 and 3 and includes a bellows 5 that is stiff in torsion. The end flange 2 is coupled to rotary stepper motor 10 on the outside of a wall, and the end flange 3 is coupled to lens 13 such that rotations of the stepper motor 10 applies torque resulting in displacement of the lens 13 in a translation direction). Vezain does not describe or render obvious a guide having an arcuate channel arranged to support and laterally stabilize the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element and wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element comprises a nickel alloy and the guide comprises leaded brass or leaded bronze, an arcuate channel arranged along at least part of a length of the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element to limit lateral movement or buckling of the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element, or wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element comprises a torsionally stiff elongate member partially positioned in a guide having an arcuate channel, the torsionally stiff elongate member positioned to conform to an interior of the arcuate channel, the torsionally stiff elongate member having a first end rotatable in the first plane and a second end rotatable in the second plane, the arcuate channel and the torsionally stiff elongate member being spaced apart by a clearance.
Hol et al. (DE 102018130290, cited by 12/20/2024 IDS) discloses a bellows and a mounting sleeve in articulated legs for supporting facet mirrors, and the articulated legs have a flexural rigidity that causes the mirrors to tilt (Fig. 4, paras. [0114], [0116], bellows 14), but Hol does not describe or render obvious a guide having an arcuate channel arranged to support and laterally stabilize the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element and wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element comprises a nickel alloy and the guide comprises leaded brass or leaded bronze, an arcuate channel arranged along at least part of a length of the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element to limit lateral movement or buckling of the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element, or wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element comprises a torsionally stiff elongate member partially positioned in a guide having an arcuate channel, the torsionally stiff elongate member positioned to conform to an interior of the arcuate channel, the torsionally stiff elongate member having a first end rotatable in the first plane and a second end rotatable in the second plane, the arcuate channel and the torsionally stiff elongate member being spaced apart by a clearance.
Schenck discloses an arcuate elongate member that allows rotation in a second plane by manipulation an adjuster that applies the torque to the optical component in the first plane, the first plane and the second plane being substantially orthogonal (Figure, abstract, paras. [0003], [0008]-[0012], the eyepiece 6 and the lens 1 are arranged in substantially orthogonal planes on opposite sides of a wall 9 and coupled by an elongated image guide 4 that permits rotation). Schenck does not describe or render obvious a guide having an arcuate channel arranged to support and laterally stabilize the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element and wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element comprises a nickel alloy and the guide comprises leaded brass or leaded bronze, an arcuate channel arranged along at least part of a length of the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element to limit lateral movement or buckling of the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element, or wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element comprises a torsionally stiff elongate member partially positioned in a guide having an arcuate channel, the torsionally stiff elongate member positioned to conform to an interior of the arcuate channel, the torsionally stiff elongate member having a first end rotatable in the first plane and a second end rotatable in the second plane, the arcuate channel and the torsionally stiff elongate member being spaced apart by a clearance.
Borchers discloses a bellows that allows rotation between a mount and a component, and the rotation causes torsional elastic deformation in the bellows (Fig. 1, paras. [0035]-[0037], [0042], [0051], [0058], [0062]-[0063], [0069]), but Borchers does not describe or render obvious a guide having an arcuate channel arranged to support and laterally stabilize the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element and wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element comprises a nickel alloy and the guide comprises leaded brass or leaded bronze, an arcuate channel arranged along at least part of a length of the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element to limit lateral movement or buckling of the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element, or wherein the elongate torsionally stiff torque transfer element comprises a torsionally stiff elongate member partially positioned in a guide having an arcuate channel, the torsionally stiff elongate member positioned to conform to an interior of the arcuate channel, the torsionally stiff elongate member having a first end rotatable in the first plane and a second end rotatable in the second plane, the arcuate channel and the torsionally stiff elongate member being spaced apart by a clearance.
Conclusion
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