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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because inclusion of the claim language and length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi [US 5,610,683] in view of Dodoc et al. [US 2006/0187430]
For claim 1, Takahashi teaches an object transport unit (9, see Fig. 6), comprising
an object carrier (601) for receiving an object,
at least one optical element (7) introduced between an objective and the object carrier, wherein the optical element has a portion configured for penetration by light (for projecting light onto the wafer, see Fig. 1 and col. 4 line 61-col. 5 line 20) , wherein at least the portion of the optical element is movable in the axial direction with respect to the optical axis (detachable and therefore movable, see col. 8 lines 15-32), and
at least one optical element holder (support portions of cassette 9 with fixing element 631, see Fig. 6) for holding the at least one optical element,
wherein the object transport unit is at least transferable between a handling unit for immersion media and an optical characterization or processing unit, wherein the handling unit is at least configured to apply an immersion medium used between the optical element and an object to be characterized or processed, and wherein the optical characterization or processing unit comprises at least one device for producing or for receiving the light and the objective for exposing the object using the light or for capturing the light from the object (the cassette 9 is functionally capable of being used in the manner described, see, for example, Figs. 1, 4, and 9 and corresponding description of the conveyance of the cassette 9, further the claim is limited to the structural features of the object transport unit).
Takahashi fails to teach the optical element is a membrane (see the Applicant’s specification at [0036] for term “membrane” definition).
Dodoc teaches that a parallel plate lens can be replaced by a membrane (see [0152]).
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 membrane as taught by Dodoc in place of the optical element as taught by Takahashi in order to accommodate pressure differences without breaking or eliminate the need for matching the refraction index of the immersion liquid.
For claim 2, in the combination, Takahashi teaches the optical element holder is fastened to the object transport unit or integrated in the object transport unit (see Fig. 6), and Dodoc teaches an optical element as a membrane (see [0152]).
For claim 3, in the combination, Takahashi teaches the object transport unit is configured that the immersion medium is fixated between the optical element and the object (23, see Fig. 6), and Dodoc teaches an optical element as a membrane (see [0152]).
For claim 4, Takahashi teaches the object transport unit is configured that the object is transported from the handling unit to the optical characterization or processing unit using a conveyor system, wherein a transport of the object from the handling unit to the optical characterization or processing unit takes place under normal ambient conditions (the cassette 9 is functionally capable of being used in the manner described, see, for example, Figs. 1, 4, and 9 and corresponding description of the conveyance of the cassette).
For claim 5, Takahashi teaches the optical characterization or processing unit is configured to apply a further index liquid between the membrane and the objective before at least one of the processing or the optical characterization of the object is implemented (the cassette 9 is functionally capable of being used in the manner described, see, for example, Figs. 1, 4, and 9 and corresponding description of the conveyance of the cassette).
For claim 6, Takahashi teaches the object transport unit is configured that the object is transferable to a separate developer unit and configured to be opened in the developer unit (the cassette 9 is functionally capable of being used in the manner described, see, for example, Figs. 1, 4, and 9 and corresponding description of the conveyance of the cassette).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Dodoc as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stickel et al. [US 2007/0024982].
For claim 7, Takahashi fails to teach the membrane is transparent to the light at a wavelength used for the optical characterization or processing of the object but is not transparent to the light at shorter wavelengths.
Stickel teaches the membrane is transparent to the light at a wavelength used for the optical characterization or processing of the object (the membrane 4 is substantially transparent for the operating wavelength of the projection objective 2, see [0053]) but is not transparent to the light at shorter wavelengths (amorphous fluoro-polymers with an absorptivity of for example less than 10% in the range of wavelengths from 190 to 820 nm, see [0058]).
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 membrane as taught by Stickel as the optical element as taught by Takahashi in order to ensure transmission of the light so that the substrate can be exposed.
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