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 Group II in the reply filed on May 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3, 22, and 23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 4-21, 24, and 25 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.
In claims 4 and 15, the use of the term “z-direction” is unclear because there is no coordinate system defined. For the purposes of examining, the z-direction understood to be the longitudinal direction of the mandrel about which would be an axial movement.
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 4-7, 10, 14-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fröhner [US 2,893,742].
For claim 4, Fröhner teaches a device (se Fig. 1) for aligning two components of a projection exposure apparatus for semiconductor lithography, comprising: a mandrel (2) that provides a radial expansion of at least a portion of the mandrel perpendicular to the z-direction in response to an axial movement or feed in the mandrel along the z-direction caused by a torque (see col. 2 lines 53-64).
For claim 5, Fröhner teaches a first one of the two components, and wherein the mandrel is permanently connected to the first component (mandrel is part of the carrier 1, see Fig. 1).
For claim 6, Fröhner teaches a second one of the two components, and wherein the second component has a recess corresponding to an outer diameter of the mandrel (opening within workpiece 15).
For claim 7, Fröhner teaches the mandrel is embodied in such a way that it can switch between a released state and a braced state in response to the torque (bolt turned to bring sleeve into contact with work piece, see col. 2 lines 53-64).
For claim 10, Fröhner teaches the mandrel comprising a clamping element is connected to a clamping sleeve or a main body in such a way that only axial forces are transmitted to the mandrel portion having the radial expansion (axial pressure on sleeve 9 transmitted to mandrel 2 cap-shaped end 4, see Fig. 1 and col. 2 lines 53-64).
For claim 14, Fröhner teaches an indicator for indicating a successful alignment (mandrel device is visually within the opening of workpiece 15, see Fig. 1).
For claim 15, Fröhner teaches the mandrel has a predetermined maximum travel along the z-direction (limited by sleeve 14 and ring 8, see Fig. 1).
For claim 16, Fröhner teaches the predetermined maximum travel is settable (sleeve 14 can be changed by removing bolt 12 and ring 8 can be removed by spring ring 6’).
For claim 19, Fröhner teaches the clamping sleeve has a monolithic structure (9, see Fig. 1).
For claim 20, Fröhner teaches the mandrel has an internal thread for effecting the travel (thread of mandrel that mates with thread 5 to move mandrel when the bolt is turned, see col. 2 lines 53-64).
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 8, 9, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fröhner.
For claims 8, 9, 24, and 25, Fröhner fails to teach a joint clearance between the recess and the mandrel in the released state is greater than or equal to 30 μm, and a joint clearance between the recess and the mandrel in the released state is greater than or equal to 30 μm, or less than 15 μm, or less than 5 μm.
Fröhner teaches that the mandrel 2 is moved in order to bring the clamping sleeve 9 into contact with the workpiece 15 (see col. 2 lines 53-64).
Accordingly, Fröhner recognizes that there must be a braced distance where the mandrel 2 brings the sleeve 9 into contact with the workpiece 15 and released distance where the mandrel 2 allows the sleeve 9 to be out of contact with the workpiece 15.
Further, there is no evidence showing the criticality of the claimed distances.
According to well established patent law precedent (see, for example, M.P.E.P. §2144.05) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine (for example by routine experimentation) the optimum distance to provide for desired clamping and de-clamping.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fröhner in view of Miller [US 2019/0264720].
For claim 11, Fröhner fails to teach the clamping sleeve and/or the main body is coated with a friction-reducing layer.
Miller teaches the clamping sleeve and/or the main body is coated with a friction-reducing layer (a material configured to provide a relatively low coefficient of friction and/or non-adhesive properties (e.g., a PTFE layer or coating), see [0030], [0036], [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the layer as taught by Miller in the fastener as taught by Fröhner in order to reduce particle generation and wear.
For claim 12, Fröhner fails to teach an outer contour of the clamping sleeve or an inner contour of the corresponding recess has a rounded geometry (curved surface, see [0041]).
Miller teaches an outer contour of the clamping sleeve or an inner contour of the corresponding recess has a rounded geometry (curved surface, see [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the curved surface as taught by Miller in the fastener as taught by Fröhner in order to facilitate interfacing and engagement of the clamping sleeve.
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fröhner in view of Littelink [DE 102019116212].
For claim 13, Fröhner fails to teach comprising a weight compensation unit for one of the components.
Littelink teaches a weight compensation unit for one of the components (the other of the two components 110.1 , 110.2 then with a corresponding support structure 101.2 of the projection exposure system 101 connected, see page 7 and Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the support for at least one component as taught by Littelink in the fastener as taught by Fröhner in order to support the device for use in an apparatus or for at least supporting components during fastening.
For claim 17, Fröhner fails to teach the mandrel has a circumferential ball bearing.
Littelink teaches the mandrel has a circumferential ball bearing (110.16, see page 8 and Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ball bearing as taught by Littelink in the fastener as taught by Fröhner in order to reduce friction for ensuring relative movement between the objects and reduce particle generation.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fröhner in view of Melencio et al. [US 2019/0211855].
For claim 18, Fröhner fails to teach the clamping sleeve has a stiff partial region and an elastic partial region.
Melencio teaches the clamping sleeve has a stiff partial region (top portion of sleeve 10, see Figs. 1A and 1B) and an elastic partial region (14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide flexible sleeve as taught by Melencio in the fastener as taught by Fröhner in order to reduce to allow the expansion strain outward to occur without exceeding the material stress limits.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fröhner in view of Ziegelmeyer [US 2017/0304907].
For claim 21, Fröhner teaches the mandrel has a volume surrounding the thread (space surround threads 5, see Fig. 1) and using an elastic rubber 13 to reduce contamination of the sleeve surface (see col. 2 lines 45-48), but fails to teach the volume is sealed off from the outside by at least one seal to avoid particle contamination
Ziegelmeyer teaches a volume that is sealed off from the outside by at least one seal to avoid particle contamination (a sealing ring 54 counter to the action of dirt from the outside, see [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide sealed volume as taught by Ziegelmeyer in the fastener as taught by Fröhner in order to maintain smooth action of the threading and reducing particle contamination.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights