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 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: “light source system adapted to project…” in Claim 1; “polarization interference dephasing system”, in claim 3.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
More specifically, the Examiner notes the element (polarization interference dephasing system) is subject to interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is not described in the Specification so as to provide the structure or equivalents thereof that perform the corresponding function of the claim identified in the claims subject to such interpretation. Since the claims is subject to this deficiency, the elements subject to such are not accompanied by sufficient structural features so as to define what the corresponding structure performing the claimed function. Even though (polarization interference dephasing system) is part of the optical detector this structure do not perform the corresponding function of polarization interference dephasing. Additionally, there is not a dependent claim that cure such deficiency, then claim is found to contain subject matter which is not described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 3 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitation “polarization interference dephasing system” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The Specification makes no mention whatsoever of any structure or equivalents thereof for performing the corresponding claimed function for any of these elements and none of the elements are accompanied by sufficient structural features so as to define the corresponding structure performing each of the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
For purposes of examination and until Applicant either overcome or cures the deficiency above, the Examiner will interpret claim limitations “polarization interference dephasing system” as any device capable to change/dephasing de polarization of a light beam. In other words, the Examiner will interpret the above structural limitations as any device capable to change/dephasing de polarization of a light beam and/or any kind of configuration of some sort.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neukermans et al. (US 2023/0332995 A1), hereafter Neukermans.
Regarding claim 1, Neukermans teaches an optical alignment detection apparatus, (Fig. 1, element 100, [0131-0133]), adapted to detect a wave plate to be detected (Fig. 1 elements 128 AND/OR 130, [0132]), the optical alignment detection apparatus comprising:
a light source system (Fig. 1 element 102, [0128]), adapted to project a beam (Fig. 1 element 104), [0128];
a first linear polarizer (Fig. 1 element 124), disposed on a side of the light source system(102), (as shown in Fig. 1) and located on a transmission path of the beam (104), [0128], the beam being converted into linearly polarized light by the first linear polarizer, (the beam 104 interacted with the first linear polarizer 124, generating linearly polarized light, [0131]);
a second linear polarizer (Fig. 1 element 126), disposed on a side of the first linear polarizer (124) away from the light source system (102), (as shown in Fig 1, [0131]), the wave plate to be detected (Fig. 1 elements 128 AND/OR 130) being adapted to be rotatably disposed between the first linear polarizer (124) and the second linear polarizer (126), (elements 128 AND/OR 130 are disposed in a rotation stages 112 + 114, [0130]) wherein the linearly polarized light is transmitted to the wave plate to be detected (128 AND/OR 130) and the second linear polarizer (126) and is converted into an alignment beam, (light beam generated by element 126 is used to obtain the maximum extinction (minimum transmission), therefore is interpreted as a alignment beam, [0131-0132]) ; and
an optical detector (Fig. 1 element 118, [0130]), disposed on a side of the second linear polarizer (126) away from the first linear polarizer (124), (as shown in Fig. 1), the optical detector (118) being adapted to receive the alignment beam and to record and analyze an intensity of the alignment beam, (the device record and analyze the intensity of the alignment beam , [0029], as it rotate the stages 110, 112, 114, 116 until maximum extinction (minimum transmission) is obtained, [0131-0132]. Additionally, the claim recite “adapted” is a contingent limitation and do not carry patentably weight as those steps are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim since does not limit the scope of the claim, See Ex parte Schulhauser, In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04); see also In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Regarding claim 4, Neukermans teaches the optical alignment detection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the wave plate to be detected Fig. 1 elements 128 AND/OR 130) rotates by taking a center axis as an axis, (elements 112 + 114 rotates the wave plates 128 and 130, [0130]), and the center axis passes through and is perpendicular to the first linear polarizer (Fig. 1 element 124, [0130]) and the second linear polarizer (Fig. 1 element 126, [0035]), ( the rotational axis of elements 128/130 is perpendicular to elements 124 and 126, [0131-0132]).
Regarding claim 5, Neukermans teaches an optical alignment detection method, [0131-0133], adapted to detect a wave plate to be detected (Fig. 1 elements 128 AND/OR 130, [0132]),, the optical alignment detection method comprising:
projecting a beam (Fig. 1 element 104) by using a light source system (Fig. 1 element 102, [0128]);
disposing a first linear polarizer (Fig. 1 element 124) on a side of the light source system (102), (as shown in Fig. 1) and converting the beam into linearly polarized light by the first linear polarizer, (the beam 104 interacted with the first linear polarizer 124, generating linearly polarized light, [0131]);
disposing a second linear polarizer (Fig. 1 element 126) on a side of the first linear polarizer (124) away from the light source system (102), (as shown in Fig 1, [0131]), the wave plate to be detected (Fig. 1 elements 128 AND/OR 130) being adapted to be rotatably disposed between the first linear polarizer (124) and the second linear polarizer (126), (elements 128 AND/OR 130 are disposed in a rotation stages 112 + 114, [0130]), wherein the linearly polarized light is transmitted to the wave plate to be detected (128 AND/OR 130) and the second linear polarizer (126) and is converted into an alignment beam (light beam generated by element 126 is used to obtain the maximum extinction (minimum transmission), therefore is interpreted as a alignment beam, [0131-0132]), and the alignment beam has different intensities as the wave plate to be detected is located at different rotation angles (“The second high precision rotation stage 112 is rotated to obtain maximum extinction (minimum transmission”, element 112 rotates the waveplate 128 to obtain the minimum transmission, therefore the light beam has changes in intensity as the wave plate change in angle, [0132]).; and
disposing an optical detector (Fig. 1 element 118, [0130]), on a side of the second linear polarizer (126) away from the first linear polarizer (124), (as shown in Fig. 1), receiving the alignment beam by the optical detector (118) and recording and analyzing the intensities of the alignment beam when the wave plate to be detected is located at different rotation angles ((“The second high precision rotation stage 112 is rotated to obtain maximum extinction (minimum transmission”, element 112 rotates the waveplate 128 to obtain the minimum transmission, therefore the light beam has changes in intensity as the wave plate change in angle, [0132]).; , the device record and analyze the intensity of the alignment beam , [0029], as it rotate the stages 110, 112, 114, 116 until maximum extinction (minimum transmission) is obtained, [0131-0132], (also as shown in Fig. 3), wherein when the intensity of the alignment beam is a maximum value or a minimum value, the wave plate to be detected at the rotation angle is located at an aligned position, (“The second high precision rotation stage 112 is rotated to obtain maximum extinction (minimum transmission)”, the angle of element 128 is at the aligned position “maximum extinction”, , [0132]), Additionally, the claim recite “wherein when” are a contingent limitation and do not carry patentably weight as those steps are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim since does not limit the scope of the claim, See Ex parte Schulhauser, In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04); see also In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Regarding claim 6, Neukermans teaches the optical alignment detection method according to claim 5, wherein the wave plate to be detected is a quarter-wave plate, [0143].
Regarding claim 7, Neukermans teaches the optical alignment detection method according to claim 5, wherein the wave plate to be detected Fig. 1 elements 128 AND/OR 130) rotates by taking a center axis as an axis, (elements 112 + 114 rotates the wave plates 128 and 130, [0130]), and the center axis passes through and is perpendicular to the first linear polarizer (Fig. 1 element 124, [0130]) and the second linear polarizer (Fig. 1 element 126, [0035]), (the rotational axis of elements 128/130 is perpendicular to elements 124 and 126, [0131-0132]).
Regarding claim 8, Neukermans teaches the optical alignment detection method according to claim 5, wherein prior to disposing the wave plate to be detected (Fig. 1 elements 128 AND/OR 130) between the first linear polarizer (Fig. 1 element 124) and the second linear polarizer (Fig. 1 element 126), [0130-0132], the method further comprises a correcting step, the correcting step comprising:
projecting the beam by using the light source system (Fig. 1 element 102), the beam being transmitted to the first linear polarizer (Fig. 1 element 124), and the second linear polarizer (Fig. 1 element 126) in order and converted into a correction beam [0035, 0130], wherein the second linear polarizer (126) rotates by taking the center axis as an axis, (“The fourth rotation stage 116 is subsequently rotated until maximum extinction (minimum transmission) is obtained”, the rotational stage 116 rotates the second linear polarizer 126, such as, the light beam has changes in intensity as the wave plate change in angle [0131]). and the correction beam has different intensities as the rotation angles of the second linear polarizer are different, (“the transmission axis of the first linear polarizer 124 and the transmission axis of the second linear polarizer 126 are at an angle of 90 degrees with respect to one another”, [0131]); and
receiving, by the optical detector (Fig. 1 element 118), the correction beam, and recording and analyzing, by the optical detector, the intensities of the correction beam when the second linear polarizer (126) is located at different rotation angles, [0131], wherein when the intensity of the correction beam is a maximum value or a minimum value, the second linear polarizer (126) at the rotation angle is located at a corrected position, (stage 116 is subsequently rotated element 126 until maximum extinction (minimum transmission) is obtained, such as element 126 is in the corrected position of minimum value of intensity, [0131]), Additionally, the claim recite “wherein when” are a contingent limitation and do not carry patentably weight as those steps are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim since does not limit the scope of the claim, See Ex parte Schulhauser, In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04); see also In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Regarding claim 9, Neukermans teaches the optical alignment detection method according to claim 8, wherein when the wave plate to be detected (Fig. 1 elements 128) is disposed between the first linear polarizer (Fig. 1 element 124), and the second linear polarizer (Fig. 1 element 126), the second linear polarizer (128) is positioned at the corrected position, (element 128 is positioned at the corrected position before element 128 is disposed between elements 124 and 126, [0131-0132]).
Regarding claim 10, Neukermans teaches the optical alignment detection method according to claim 8, wherein the first linear polarizer (Fig. 1 element 124), has a first transmission axis, [0038], the second linear polarizer (Fig. 1 element 126), has a second transmission axis, [0038], and the correcting step refers to rotating the second linear polarizer (126) to make an included angle between the first transmission axis and the second transmission axis be 0 degrees or 90 degrees, (“the transmission axis of the first linear polarizer 124 and the transmission axis of the second linear polarizer 126 are at an angle of 90 degrees with respect to each another”, [0131].
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neukermans et al. (US 2023/0332995 A1), hereafter Neukermans in view of Kishikawa et al. (JP 2004/212125 A), hereafter Kishikawa.
Regarding claims 2-3, Neukermans teaches the optical alignment detection apparatus according to claim 1.
Neukermans fail to teach:
(claim 2) wherein the beam is a laser.
(claim 3) wherein the optical detector has a polarization interference dephasing system.
However, Kishikawa related to measuring devices that manipulate the polarization state of light and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches:
(claim 2) wherein the beam is a laser, [0017]
(claim 3) wherein the optical detector (Fig. 1 elements 140a + 140b, [0015]) has a polarization interference dephasing system, (element 140 comprises linearly polarizing elements 142a and 142b, and light amount detectors 144a and 144b. The linear polarization elements 142a and 142b are arranged such that the transmission polarization direction is 0 degrees with respect to the reference direction The linear polarization element 142b is arranged so that the transmission polarization direction is 90 degrees with respect to the reference direction., therefore the detector 140a-b changed the phase of the polarized light, [0047, 0089]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Neukermans by including wherein the beam is a laser, wherein the optical detector has a polarization interference dephasing system, (as taught by Kishikawa) for several advantages such as: allowing to determine the birefringence phase difference and the fast axis direction of the measured object, thus increase the device accuracy, ([0048], Kishikawa).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neukermans et al. (US 2023/0332995 A1), hereafter Neukermans in view of Opsal et al. (US 2003/0053053 A1), hereafter Opsal.
Regarding claim 11, Neukermans teaches the optical alignment detection method according to claim 10, wherein the wave plate to be detected (Fig. 1 elements 128 AND/OR 130) has a fast axis; and when the intensity of the alignment beam is the maximum value or the minimum value, (the second high precision rotation stage 112 comprising element 128 is rotated to obtain maximum extinction (minimum transmission), [0132], an included angle between the fast axis of the wave plate (128) to be detected and the second transmission axis is one of 45 degrees, 135 degrees, 225 degrees or 315 degrees, (the optical axis “fast axis” of the waveplate is at 45 angle from the second transmission axis, [0132]).
In arguendo that the optical axis of the wave plate 128 doesn’t explicitly disclose having the fast axis, Opsal related to measuring devices that manipulate the polarization state of light and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches: the wave plate (Fig. 1 elements 92 and/or 102) has a fast axis, [0049]; and when the intensity of the alignment beam is the maximum value or the minimum value, (null or minimum level of intensity, [0049]) an included angle between the fast axis of the wave plate to be detected and the second transmission axis is one of 45 degrees, 135 degrees, 225 degrees or 315 degrees, [0049-0050].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Neukermans by including the wave plate has a fast axis, an included angle between the fast axis of the wave plate to be detected and the second transmission axis is one of 45 degrees, 135 degrees, 225 degrees or 315 degrees, (as taught by Opsal) for several advantages such as: allowing to provide highly accurate information about layer thickness, thus increase the device accuracy and versability, ([0051], Opsal).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS G PEREZ-GUZMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/CARLOS PEREZ-GUZMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877