DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-33 of U.S. Patent No. 10,551,752 B2, claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,281,115 B2, claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,630,399 B2, and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,204,255 B2 all issued to Ten Kate et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of application 19/009394 are directed to the same invention of claims of U.S. 10,551,752 B2, U.S. 11,281, 115 B2, U.S. 11,630,399 B2 and U.S 12,204,255 B2. In this instance the claims of application 19/009394 are broader than that of U.S. 10,551,752 B2, U.S. 11,281,115 B2, U.S. 11,630,399 B2 and U.S 12,204,255 B2. As such the claim of application 19/009394 is met by claims of U.S. 10,551,752 B2, U.S. 11,281,115 B2, U.S. 11,630,399 B2 and U.S 12,204,255 B2.
No further analysis is necessary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Cadee et al. [US 2006/0033898 A1].
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5, 15 and 17, Cadee et al. discloses a lithographic apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising: an electrically conductive coating on a surface; and a heater and/or temperature sensor connected to the coating (Fig. 23, see also paragraph [0117] teaches an electrically conductive strips (900) may be formed by coating an electrically conductive material on a top surface of the substrate table WT).
Regarding claims 3, Cadee et al. discloses further comprising a burl plate to support the substrate, wherein the surface on which the heater and/or temperature sensor is formed is a surface of the burl plate (as shown in Fig. 20).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Cadee et al. discloses wherein the heater and/or temperature sensor is formed of platinum, or wherein the temperature sensor is connected to an electrical assembly to read measurements from the temperature sensor indirectly via an electrically conductive coating on the component to which the temperature sensor is applied, or wherein the substrate table further comprises plurality of edge heaters adjacent different portions of an edge of the substrate supporting area and/or a chamber in the substrate table containing a fluid in both gaseous and liquid phases and/or a passage adjacent the substrate supporting area for the passage of a thermal conditioning fluid therethrough, or wherein the substrate table comprises one heater and/or temperature sensor per die on the substrate (Figs. 23 and 24, see also paragraph [0117] teaches an electrically conductive strips (900) may be formed by coating an electrically conductive material on a top surface of the substrate table WT).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Cadee et al. discloses comprising a plurality of the heaters and a plurality of the temperature sensors, wherein the plurality of heaters and plurality of temperature sensors are, in plan, laid out in a two-dimensional grid, or wherein each heater is integrated with a corresponding temperature sensor (Figs. 23 and 24, see also paragraph [0117] teaches an electrically conductive strips (900) may be formed by coating an electrically conductive material on a top surface of the substrate table WT).
Regarding claims 9-11 and 16 Cadee et al. discloses wherein each of the plurality of heaters is associated with a corresponding one temperature sensor of the plurality of temperature sensors, wherein a heater and an associated sensor form a self-regulating thermal system, wherein the self-regulating thermal system is configured to activate or deactivate the heater due to local change in temperature (Figs. 23 and 24, see also paragraph [0117]).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Cadee et al. discloses wherein the heater and associated sensor form a micro-electro-mechanical system, wherein the associated sensor comprises a thermally activated switch (Figs. 23 and 24, see also paragraph [0117]).
Regarding claims 14, Cadee et al. discloses wherein the heater and associated sensor are a self-regulated heater having an electromagnetic property that varies as a function of temperature such that a change in temperature results in a change in heat output at constant applied voltage (Figs. 23 and 24, see also paragraph [0117]).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Cadee et al. discloses wherein the coating is patterned, wherein the coating comprises at least one elongate portion (as shown in Fig. 23).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cadee et al. in view of Hara et al. [US 2006/0285093 A1].
Regarding claim 4, Cadee et al. discloses the lithographic apparatus, as applied above.
Cadee et al. does not teach wherein the heater and/or temperature sensor is formed on the burl plate between the burls.
However, Hara et al. discloses wherein the heater and/or temperature sensor is formed on the burl plate between the burls (as shown in Figs. 6 and 7, see also paragraphs [0066]-[0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a heater and/or temperature sensor is formed on the burl plate between the burls, as taught by Hara et al. in the system of Cadee et al. because such a modification provides a suitable alternative substrate table wherein deformation of the wafer-stage top plate and the substrate can be reduced (paragraph [0067] of Hara et al.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEORAM PERSAUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-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.
/DEORAM PERSAUD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights