DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bailly et al. [US 6402329 B1, hereafter Bailly].
As per Claim 1, Bailly teaches a bipod (See fig. 6), comprising:
a base portion (not shown) (Column 8 lines 11-14);
a first tower portion (28+38 on the left side) extending from the base portion;
a second tower portion (28+38 on the right side) different from the first tower portion, the second tower portion extending from the base portion (wherein the towers are attached to the base by anchor part 16b); and
a mechanism 20 couplable to an optical element to adjust an optical element (Column 5 lines 27-37),
wherein:
the mechanism is between the first and second tower portions (See fig. 6); and
the first and second tower portions are connected to each other facing away from the base portion (See fig. 6, Column 6 lines 23-33).
As per Claims 2 and 3, Bailly teaches the bipod of claim 1, wherein the base portion, the first tower portion, the second tower portion and the mechanism are a one-piece component (See fig. 6).
As per Claim 4, Bailly teaches the bipod of claim 1, comprising: a first cutout between the first and second tower portions; and a second cutout between the second tower portion and the mechanism (See fig. 6, the connecting section between arms 28 and 38).
As per Claim 8, Bailly teaches the bipod of claim 1, further comprising a stiffening element 30 connecting the first and second tower portions (See fig. 6).
As per Claim 9, Bailly teaches the bipod of claim 8, wherein the stiffening element is connected to the base portion (Column 8 lines 17-26).
As per Claim 10, Bailly teaches the bipod of claim 8, wherein the stiffening element comprises a recess facing away from the bipod (See fig. 6).
As per Claim 11, Bailly teaches the bipod of claim 10, wherein the stiffening element comprises a plurality of recess portions 30 extending into the stiffening element to different depths thereby defining a stepped geometry (See fig. 6).
As per Claim 18, Bailly teaches an optical system comprising: an optical element; and a first bipod according to claim 1 coupled to the optical element (Column 1 lines 21-34).
As per Claim 19, Bailly teaches the optical system according to claim 18, further comprising: a second bipod according to claim 1 coupled to the optical element; and a third bipod according to claim 1 coupled to the optical element, wherein each of the first, second and third bipods is assigned two of the six degrees of freedom (Column 2 lines 51-61).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailly as applied above in view of Brown et al. [US 20140151947 A1, hereafter Brown].
As per Claims 5-7 and 17, Bailly teaches the bipod of claim 1.
Bailly does not explicitly teach wherein the mechanism comprises: a first pocket configured to receive a first actuating element; and a second pocket configured to receive a second actuating element.
Brown teaches a precision tripod motion system is provided. The tripod motion system in one example includes a bottom plate including three spaced-apart single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) hinge portions, a top plate including three spaced-apart top TDOF joint portions, with the top plate configured to receive a workpiece, three linear actuators pivotally coupled to the three bottom SDOF hinge portions of the bottom plate and coupled to the three top TDOF joint portions of the top plate, with each linear actuator of the three linear actuators configured to change length over a linear actuation span, and a rotator component and/or a positioning table affixed to the top plate and the bottom plate. The tripod motion system is additionally coupled to a rotator component and a positioning table to provide six degrees of freedom of motion (Para 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate the actuating elements as disclosed by Brown in order to position the object with enhanced precision.
Claim(s) 12-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailly as applied above in view of Erbe [US 20190041632 A1].
As per Claims 12-16, Bailly teaches the bipod of claim 1.
Bailly does not explicitly teach an exoskeleton connecting the first and section tower portions.
Erbe teaches the socket assembly 2.2 is arranged around the support 2.1 and firmly connected to the latter. Both parts may also be connected to each other monolithically (Para 39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate an exoskeleton element as claimed in order to position the object firmly.
As per Claim 20, Bailly teaches an apparatus, comprising: an optical element; and a first bipod according to claim 1 coupled to the optical element.
Bailly does not explicitly teach wherein the apparatus is a projection exposure apparatus.
Erbe teaches a lithography system comprising at least one mirror assembly. A mirror assembly of lithography systems comprises mirrors with a large diameter, which makes low-deformation support and actuation difficult (Para 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate a support element as claimed in order to position the optical element of exposure machine in a desired location.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The reference US 20170030514 A1 to Kurose et al. listed in the attached form PTO-892 teach other prior art apparatus/method of a supporting rod with high rigidity and strength so as to achieve precise positioning that may anticipate or obviate the claims of the applicant's invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MESFIN ASFAW whose telephone number is (571)270-5247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
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, 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.
/MESFIN T ASFAW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights