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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made that the instant application is a continuation of application PCT/EP2023/074291, filed on 9/5/2023, which claims priority from DE102022210171.5, filed on 9/27/2022.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 4, “base portion being having” should be changed to --base portion having-- or similar language to correct grammar.
Claim 4, line 3, “the rib” should be changed to --the circumferential rib-- to improve antecedence.
Claim 14, line 3, “the rib” should be changed to --the circumferential rib-- to improve antecedence.
Appropriate correction is required to place claims in better form.
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 2 and 13-17 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.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry” is vague and indefinite. The term “like” added to the terms “truss” and “honeycomb” renders the claim indefinite because the scope of the structure is not ascertainable by one of ordinary skill in the art. In referring to “truss-like or honeycomb-like” geometry, the specification on page 6, lines 19-22 states, “this means that the rib structure may have a plurality of different ribs or rib portions which merge into one another, intersect one another or are connected to one another, and consequently form truss-shaped or honeycomb-shaped regions. In this context, the rib structure may have any desired geometric shape.” It is therefore unclear if the claim language “truss-like or honeycomb-like” requires different ribs or rib portions to intersect, connect, or merge into each other or if the claim language would be satisfied by a rib structure having “any desired geometric shape.” The metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as meaning wherein the rib structure has a truss geometry or honeycomb geometry. Thus, claim 2 is rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry” in line 2 is vague and indefinite. The term “like” added to the terms “truss” and “honeycomb” renders the claim indefinite because the scope of the structure is not ascertainable by one of ordinary skill in the art. In referring to “truss-like or honeycomb-like” geometry, the specification on page 6, lines 19-22 states, “this means that the rib structure may have a plurality of different ribs or rib portions which merge into one another, intersect one another or are connected to one another, and consequently form truss-shaped or honeycomb-shaped regions. In this context, the rib structure may have any desired geometric shape.” It is therefore unclear if the claim language “truss-like or honeycomb-like” requires different ribs or rib portions to intersect, connect, or merge into each other or if the claim language would be satisfied by a rib structure having “any desired geometric shape.” The metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as meaning wherein the rib structure has a truss geometry or honeycomb geometry. Thus, claim 13 is rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry” in line 2 is vague and indefinite. The term “like” added to the terms “truss” and “honeycomb” renders the claim indefinite because the scope of the structure is not ascertainable by one of ordinary skill in the art. In referring to “truss-like or honeycomb-like” geometry, the specification on page 6, lines 19-22 states, “this means that the rib structure may have a plurality of different ribs or rib portions which merge into one another, intersect one another or are connected to one another, and consequently form truss-shaped or honeycomb-shaped regions. In this context, the rib structure may have any desired geometric shape.” It is therefore unclear if the claim language “truss-like or honeycomb-like” requires different ribs or rib portions to intersect, connect, or merge into each other or if the claim language would be satisfied by a rib structure having “any desired geometric shape.” The metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as meaning wherein the rib structure has a truss geometry or honeycomb geometry. Thus, claim 14 is rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry” in line 2 is vague and indefinite. The term “like” added to the terms “truss” and “honeycomb” renders the claim indefinite because the scope of the structure is not ascertainable by one of ordinary skill in the art. In referring to “truss-like or honeycomb-like” geometry, the specification on page 6, lines 19-22 states, “this means that the rib structure may have a plurality of different ribs or rib portions which merge into one another, intersect one another or are connected to one another, and consequently form truss-shaped or honeycomb-shaped regions. In this context, the rib structure may have any desired geometric shape.” It is therefore unclear if the claim language “truss-like or honeycomb-like” requires different ribs or rib portions to intersect, connect, or merge into each other or if the claim language would be satisfied by a rib structure having “any desired geometric shape.” The metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as meaning wherein the rib structure has a truss geometry or honeycomb geometry. Thus, claim 15 is rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry” in line 2 is vague and indefinite. The term “like” added to the terms “truss” and “honeycomb” renders the claim indefinite because the scope of the structure is not ascertainable by one of ordinary skill in the art. In referring to “truss-like or honeycomb-like” geometry, the specification on page 6, lines 19-22 states, “this means that the rib structure may have a plurality of different ribs or rib portions which merge into one another, intersect one another or are connected to one another, and consequently form truss-shaped or honeycomb-shaped regions. In this context, the rib structure may have any desired geometric shape.” It is therefore unclear if the claim language “truss-like or honeycomb-like” requires different ribs or rib portions to intersect, connect, or merge into each other or if the claim language would be satisfied by a rib structure having “any desired geometric shape.” The metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as meaning wherein the rib structure has a truss geometry or honeycomb geometry. Thus, claim 16 is rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 17¸ the limitation “wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry” in lines 3-4 is vague and indefinite. The term “like” added to the terms “truss” and “honeycomb” renders the claim indefinite because the scope of the structure is not ascertainable by one of ordinary skill in the art. In referring to “truss-like or honeycomb-like” geometry, the specification on page 6, lines 19-22 states, “this means that the rib structure may have a plurality of different ribs or rib portions which merge into one another, intersect one another or are connected to one another, and consequently form truss-shaped or honeycomb-shaped regions. In this context, the rib structure may have any desired geometric shape.” It is therefore unclear if the claim language “truss-like or honeycomb-like” requires different ribs or rib portions to intersect, connect, or merge into each other or if the claim language would be satisfied by a rib structure having “any desired geometric shape.” The metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as meaning wherein the rib structure has a truss geometry or honeycomb geometry. Thus, claim 17 is rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 3, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauf et al. (US PGPub 2017/0363861, Hauf hereinafter) in view of Kugler et al. (US PGPub 2019/0094705, Kugler hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Hauf discloses an optical element (Figs. 1-12, paras. [0097]-[0098], [0109], [0122], the projection exposure apparatus 1 comprises an optical component), comprising:
a mirror body comprising a mirror portion (Figs. 1-3, 12, paras. [0109], [0119], [0122], [0124], optical component 30 comprises mirror 20 with mirror body 27) and a base portion extending from a back side of the mirror portion (Figs. 1-3, 12, paras. [0122], [0124], [0134]-[0136], [0138], the optical component 30 comprises substrate 39), the mirror portion comprising an optically active surface (Figs. 1-3, 12, paras. [0109], [0119], [0122], [0124], the mirror 20 includes reflection surface 26), the base portion being having a greater rigidity than the mirror portion (Figs. 1-3, 12, paras. [0119], [0134]-[0136], [0138], [0140], [0160]-[0164], [0180], [0190]-[0198], [0201]-[0206], [0217], [0231]-[0236], [0240], [0242], the optical component 30 comprises substrate 39 as a base plate to support mirror body 27, and the substrate 39 is necessarily more rigid than the mirror 20, which is actuated at frequencies below the natural frequency of vibrations of the mirror 20);
a plurality of actuator connectors configured to connect actuators to the optical element, the actuator connectors being supported by the base portion (Figs. 2-5, 11-12, paras. [0130]-[0138], [0142], [0145]-[0147], [0156]-[0157], stator electrodes 37 are arranged on the substrate 39 and connect to mirror electrodes 42 on mirror body 27 of the mirror 20 to tilt the mirror 20);
a rib structure attached to the back side of the mirror portion (Figs. 2-5, 9-12, paras. [0126], [0186]-[0197], [0207]-[0215], mirror 20 is mounted via joint 32 having cross-shaped structure 49 with springs 50, 51 and blocks 52, 53 or plate-shaped structure 67 with blocks 53, 53). Hauf does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the actuator connectors are mechanically decoupled from the base portion via decoupling points.
Kugler discloses wherein the actuator connectors are mechanically decoupled from the base portion via decoupling points (Figs. 4, 9-10, paras. [0027], [0109], [0135]-[0137], [0142], decoupling links 318, 418 at the ends of actuator units between the actuator units and the support structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the actuator connectors are mechanically decoupled from the base portion via decoupling points as taught by Kugler in the optical element as taught by Hauf since including wherein the actuator connectors are mechanically decoupled from the base portion via decoupling points is commonly used to allow decoupling in desired actuator degrees of freedom while minimizing parasitic residual loads and to provide frictionless motion (Kugler, paras. [0027], [0109], [0135]-[0136]).
Regarding claim 3, Hauf as modified by Kugler discloses wherein the rib structure supports the mirror portion on the base portion (Hauf, Figs. 2-5, 9-12, paras. [0126], [0186]-[0197], [0207]-[0215], mirror 20 is mounted on substrate 39 via joint 32 having cross-shaped structure 49 with springs 50, 51 and blocks 52, 53 or plate-shaped structure 67 with blocks 53, 53).
Regarding claim 18, Hauf discloses an optical system (Figs. 1-12, paras. [0097]-[0098], [0109], [0122], the projection exposure apparatus 1 includes an optical component), comprising:
a plurality of actuators (Figs. 2-5, 11-12, paras. [0130]-[0138], [0142], [0145]-[0147], [0156]-[0157], mirror electrodes 42 on mirror body 27); and
an optical element (Figs. 1-12, paras. [0097]-[0098], [0109], [0122], the optical component 30), comprising:
a mirror body comprising a mirror portion (Figs. 1-3, 12, paras. [0109], [0119], [0122], [0124], optical component 30 comprises mirror 20 with mirror body 27) and a base portion extending from a back side of the mirror portion (Figs. 1-3, 12, paras. [0122], [0124], [0134]-[0136], [0138], the optical component 30 comprises substrate 39), the mirror portion comprising an optically active surface (Figs. 1-3, 12, paras. [0109], [0119], [0122], [0124], the mirror 20 includes reflection surface 26), the base portion being having a greater rigidity than the mirror portion (Figs. 1-3, 12, paras. [0119], [0134]-[0136], [0138], [0140], [0160]-[0164], [0180], [0190]-[0198], [0201]-[0206], [0217], [0231]-[0236], [0240], [0242], the optical component 30 comprises substrate 39 as a base plate to support mirror body 27, and the substrate 39 is necessarily more rigid than the thinner mirror 20, which is actuated at frequencies below the natural frequency of vibrations of the mirror 20);
a plurality of actuator connectors configured to connect the actuators to the optical element, the actuator connectors being supported by the base portion (Figs. 2-5, 11-12, paras. [0130]-[0138], [0142], [0145]-[0147], [0156]-[0157], stator electrodes 37 are arranged on the substrate 39 and connect to mirror electrodes 42 on mirror body 27 of the mirror 20 to tilt the mirror 20);
a rib structure attached to the back side of the mirror portion (Figs. 2-5, 9-12, paras. [0126], [0186]-[0197], [0207]-[0215], mirror 20 is mounted via joint 32 having cross-shaped structure 49 with springs 50, 51 and blocks 52, 53 or plate-shaped structure 67 with blocks 53, 53). Hauf does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the actuator connectors are mechanically decoupled from the base portion via decoupling points.
Kugler discloses wherein the actuator connectors are mechanically decoupled from the base portion via decoupling points (Figs. 4, 9-10, paras. [0027], [0109], [0135]-[0137], [0142], decoupling links 318, 418 at the ends of actuator units between the actuator units and the support structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the actuator connectors are mechanically decoupled from the base portion via decoupling points as taught by Kugler in the optical element in the optical system as taught by Hauf since including wherein the actuator connectors are mechanically decoupled from the base portion via decoupling points is commonly used to allow decoupling in desired actuator degrees of freedom while minimizing parasitic residual loads and to provide frictionless motion (Kugler, paras. [0027], [0109], [0135]-[0136]).
Regarding claim 19, Hauf as modified by Kugler discloses a projection exposure apparatus (Hauf, Fig. 1, paras. [0097]-[0120], projection exposure apparatus 1), comprising:
an illumination system configured to illuminate an object field in an object plane (Fig. 1, paras. [0097]-[0101], illumination system 2 illuminates object field 5 in object plane 6); and
a projection optical unit configured to image the illuminated field into an image field (Fig. 1, paras. [0097]-[0105], projection optical unit 7 includes images the object field 5 into image field 8). Although Hauf as modified by Kugler discloses wherein the projection exposure apparatus comprises the optical element according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above, Hauf, Figs. 2-5, 9-12, paras. [0126], [0186]-[0197], [0207]-[0215], mirror 20, and as modified by Kugler, Figs. 4, 9-10, paras. [0027], [0083]-[0086], [0109], [0135]-[0137], [0142], decoupling links 318, 418 at the ends of actuator units between the actuator units and the support structure for mirror M1), Hauf does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the projection optical unit comprises a plurality of optical elements, wherein at least one of the optical elements comprises the optical element.
Kugler discloses the projection optical unit comprising a plurality of optical elements, wherein at least one of the optical elements comprises the optical element (Figs. 1, 4, 9-10, paras. [0027], [0075], [0077]-[0080], [0083]-[0087], [0096]-[0099], [0109], [0129]-[0137], [0142], optical imaging arrangement 101 includes projection optics box POB 102.1 with multiple mirrors M1 to M6 supported by support devices with actuator devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the projection optical unit comprises a plurality of optical elements, wherein at least one of the optical elements comprises the optical element as taught by Kugler with the optical element as taught by Hauf since including the projection optical unit comprises a plurality of optical elements, wherein at least one of the optical elements comprises an optical element is commonly used to support the optical element in a projection system to transfer the image of the mask onto a substrate with high imaging accuracy (Kugler, paras. [0002]-[0004], [0008]-[0008], [0013]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 20, Hauf as modified by Kugler discloses wherein the projection optical unit further comprises the actuators (Hauf, Figs. 2-5, 11-12, paras. [0130]-[0138], [0142], [0145]-[0147], [0156]-[0157], mirror electrodes 42 on mirror body 27).
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauf in view of Kugler as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Oshima et al. (US PGPub 2005/0157413, Oshima hereinafter).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Hauf as modified by Kugler does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry.
Oshima discloses wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry (Figs. 2-6, para. [0023], [0029], truss 6 is a base of supporting mirror 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry as taught by Oshima as the rib structure in the optical element as taught by Hauf as modified by Kugler since including wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry is commonly used in supporting an optical element to prevent the surface accuracy from being degraded by deformation of the mirror (Oshima, paras. [0007]).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Hauf as modified by Kugler discloses wherein the rib structure supports the mirror portion on the base portion (Hauf, Figs. 2-5, 9-12, paras. [0126], [0186]-[0197], [0207]-[0215], mirror 20 is mounted on substrate 39 via joint 32 having cross-shaped structure 49 with springs 50, 51 and blocks 52, 53 or plate-shaped structure 67 with blocks 53, 53), but Hauf as modified by Kugler does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or a honeycomb-like geometry.
Oshima discloses wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry (Figs. 2-6, para. [0023], [0029], truss 6 is a base of supporting mirror 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry as taught by Oshima as the rib structure in the optical element as taught by Hauf as modified by Kugler since including wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry is commonly used in supporting an optical element to prevent the surface accuracy from being degraded by deformation of the mirror (Oshima, paras. [0007]).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauf in view of Kugler as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Holderer et al. (US Patent No. 6,259,571, Holderer hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4, Hauf as modified by Kugler does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the rib structure comprises a circumferential rib and a plurality of connecting ribs; at least sections of the rib extends around the base portion; and the connecting ribs connect the base portion to the circumferential rib.
Holderer discloses wherein the rib structure comprises a circumferential rib and a plurality of connecting ribs (Figs. 1-5, col. 2, lines 6-57, mount ring 1 and joints 2, lever 5, solid pivoting joints 7, 8);
at least sections of the rib extends around the base portion (Figs. 1-5, abstract, col. 2, lines 6-13, mount ring 1 extends around inner ring 3); and
the connecting ribs connect the base portion to the circumferential rib (Figs. 1-5, col. 2, lines 6-57, joints 2, lever 5, solid pivoting joints 7, 8 connect mount ring 1 an inner ring 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the rib structure comprises a circumferential rib and a plurality of connecting ribs; at least sections of the rib extends around the base portion; and the connecting ribs connect the base portion to the circumferential rib as taught by Holderer in the rib structure in the optical element as taught by Hauf as modified by Kugler since including wherein the rib structure comprises a circumferential rib and a plurality of connecting ribs; at least sections of the rib extends around the base portion; and the connecting ribs connect the base portion to the circumferential rib is commonly used to mount an optical element with a compact structure in a stress-isolated assembly (Holderer, col. 1, lines 32-37, col. 1, lines 51-57).
Regarding claim 5, Hauf as modified by Kugler does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the decoupling points comprise cutouts between the actuator connectors and the base portion
Holderer discloses wherein the decoupling points comprise cutouts between the actuator connectors and the base portion (Figs. 1-5, col. 2, lines 35-67, col. 3, lines 1-25, peripheral slit 11, slits 10, 14 are arranged between the mount ring 1 and levers 5, 12, solid pivoting joints 7, 8, and connecting location 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the decoupling points comprise cutouts between the actuator connectors and the base portion as taught by Holderer in the optical element as taught by Hauf as modified by Kugler since including wherein the decoupling points comprise cutouts between the actuator connectors and the base portion is commonly used to mount an optical element with a compact structure in a stress-isolated assembly while allowing the desired displacement of the optical element (Holderer, col. 1, lines 32-37, col. 1, lines 51-57, col. 3, lines 16-25).
Regarding claim 6, Hauf as modified by Kugler does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the actuator connectors are connected to one another via connecting portions.
Holderer discloses wherein the actuator connectors are connected to one another via connecting portions (Figs. 1-5, col. 2, lines 14-6col. 3, lines 1-25, levers 5 and 12 are connected by connecting location 15, and solid pivoting joints 7, 8 are connected to each other and levers 5 and 12 through connecting portions of the mount ring 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the actuator connectors are connected to one another via connecting portions as taught by Holderer in the optical element as taught by Hauf as modified by Kugler since including wherein the actuator connectors are connected to one another via connecting portions is commonly used to mount an optical element with a compact structure in a stress-isolated assembly while allowing the desired displacement of the optical element (Holderer, col. 1, lines 32-37, col. 1, lines 51-57, col. 3, lines 16-25).
Regarding claim 7, Hauf as modified by Kugler in view of Holderer discloses wherein the connecting portions are mechanically decoupled from the base portion via cutouts (Figs. 1-5, col. 2, lines 35-67, col. 3, lines 1-25, peripheral slit 11, slits 10, 14 are arranged between the mount ring 1 and levers 5, 12, solid pivoting joints 7, 8, and connecting location 15).
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauf in view of Kugler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dorobantu et al. (US PGPub 2021/0194202, Dorobantu hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, Hauf as modified by Kugler does not appear to explicitly describe further comprising a plurality of measurement targets configured to interact with a measurement beam, wherein the measurement targets are on the base portion.
Dorobantu discloses a plurality of measurement targets configured to interact with a measurement beam, wherein the measurement targets are on the base portion (Figs. 4-10, paras. [0063], [0077]-[0079], [0087]-[0088], sensors 124a, 124b direct measurement beams to distinct regions 126a, 126, on body 102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a plurality of measurement targets configured to interact with a measurement beam, wherein the measurement targets are on the base portion as taught by Dorobantu in the optical element as taught by Hauf as modified by Kugler since including a plurality of measurement targets configured to interact with a measurement beam, wherein the measurement targets are on the base portion is commonly used to provide a contactless sensor system to determine the position of the optical element in an XYZ coordinate system (Dorobantu, paras. [0005], [0077]-[0078]).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauf in view of Kugler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishikawa (US PGPub 2009/0051889).
Regarding claim 9, Hauf as modified by Kugler does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the base portion comprises a joining region extending laterally beyond the mirror portion.
Ishikawa discloses wherein the base portion comprises a joining region extending laterally beyond the mirror portion (Figs. 3-4, paras. [0045]-[0050], the ball joints 30 on outer ring 21 are arranged in regions extending laterally beyond the mirror M1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the base portion comprises a joining region extending laterally beyond the mirror portion as taught by Ishikawa in the optical element as taught by Hauf as modified by Kugler since including wherein the base portion comprises a joining region extending laterally beyond the mirror portion is commonly used to adjust the position or tilt of the optical element while suppressing the transmission of vibrations (Ishikawa, paras. [0010]-[0011]).
Regarding claim 10, Hauf as modified by Kugler in view of Ishikawa discloses wherein at least one of the actuator connectors is in the joining region (Ishikawa, Figs. 3-4, paras. [0045]-[0050], the ball joints 30 connect to links 27 and are arranged on outer ring 21 in regions extending laterally beyond the mirror M1).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauf in view of Kugler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sogard (US PGPub 2005/0099611).
Regarding claim 11, Hauf as modified by Kugler does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the mirror body is configured to be actively cooled.
Sogard discloses wherein the mirror body is configured to be actively cooled (Figs. 4-5, 8-12, paras. [0028]-[0029], [0038]-[0039], [0071], cooling fluid travels through cooling channels 30, cooling pipes 810, 910 in mirror 20 to cool the mirror).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the mirror body is configured to be actively cooled as taught by Sogard in the optical element as taught by Hauf as modified by Kugler since including wherein the mirror body is configured to be actively cooled is commonly used to prevent bowing and global distortion of the mirror (Sogard, paras. [0002]-[0004], [0046]).
Regarding claim 12, Hauf as modified by Kugler does not appear to explicitly describe wherein cooling channels passing therethrough pass through the mirror body.
Sogard discloses wherein cooling channels passing therethrough pass through the mirror body (Figs. 4-5, 8-12, paras. [0028]-[0029], [0038]-[0039], [0071], cooling fluid travels through cooling channels 30, cooling pipes 810, 910 in mirror 20 to cool the mirror).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein cooling channels passing therethrough pass through the mirror body as taught by Sogard in the optical element as taught by Hauf as modified by Kugler since including wherein cooling channels passing therethrough pass through the mirror body is commonly used to prevent bowing and global distortion of the mirror (Sogard, paras. [0002]-[0004], [0046]).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauf in view of Kugler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oshima and Holderer.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Hauf as modified by Kugler does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry; and the rib structure comprises a circumferential rib and a plurality of connecting ribs; at least sections of the rib extends around the base portion; and the connecting ribs connect the base portion to the circumferential rib.
Oshima discloses wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry (Figs. 2-6, para. [0023], [0029], truss 6 is a base of supporting mirror 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry as taught by Oshima as the rib structure in the optical element as taught by Hauf as modified by Kugler since including wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry is commonly used in supporting an optical element to prevent the surface accuracy from being degraded by deformation of the mirror (Oshima, paras. [0007]).
Hauf as modified by Kugler in view of Oshima does not appear to explicitly describe the rib structure comprises a circumferential rib and a plurality of connecting ribs; at least sections of the rib extends around the base portion; and the connecting ribs connect the base portion to the circumferential rib.
Holderer discloses wherein the rib structure comprises a circumferential rib and a plurality of connecting ribs (Figs. 1-5, col. 2, lines 6-57, mount ring 1 and joints 2, lever 5, solid pivoting joints 7, 8);
at least sections of the rib extends around the base portion (Figs. 1-5, abstract, col. 2, lines 6-13, mount ring 1 extends around inner ring 3); and
the connecting ribs connect the base portion to the circumferential rib (Figs. 1-5, col. 2, lines 6-57, joints 2, lever 5, solid pivoting joints 7, 8 connect mount ring 1 an inner ring 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the rib structure comprises a circumferential rib and a plurality of connecting ribs; at least sections of the rib extends around the base portion; and the connecting ribs connect the base portion to the circumferential rib as taught by Holderer in the rib structure in the optical element as taught by Hauf as modified by Kugler in view of Oshima since including wherein the rib structure comprises a circumferential rib and a plurality of connecting ribs; at least sections of the rib extends around the base portion; and the connecting ribs connect the base portion to the circumferential rib is commonly used to mount an optical element with a compact structure in a stress-isolated assembly (Holderer, col. 1, lines 32-37, col. 1, lines 51-57).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Hauf as modified by Kugler does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry; and the decoupling points comprise cutouts between the actuator connectors and the base portion.
Oshima discloses wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry (Figs. 2-6, para. [0023], [0029], truss 6 is a base of supporting mirror 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry as taught by Oshima as the rib structure in the optical element as taught by Hauf as modified by Kugler since including wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry is commonly used in supporting an optical element to prevent the surface accuracy from being degraded by deformation of the mirror (Oshima, paras. [0007]).
Hauf as modified by Kugler in view of Oshima does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the decoupling points comprise cutouts between the actuator connectors and the base portion.
Holderer discloses wherein the decoupling points comprise cutouts between the actuator connectors and the base portion (Figs. 1-5, col. 2, lines 35-67, col. 3, lines 1-25, peripheral slit 11, slits 10, 14 are arranged between the mount ring 1 and levers 5, 12, solid pivoting joints 7, 8, and connecting location 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the decoupling points comprise cutouts between the actuator connectors and the base portion as taught by Holderer in the optical element as taught by Hauf as modified by Kugler in view of Oshima since including wherein the decoupling points comprise cutouts between the actuator connectors and the base portion is commonly used to mount an optical element with a compact structure in a stress-isolated assembly while allowing the desired displacement of the optical element (Holderer, col. 1, lines 32-37, col. 1, lines 51-57, col. 3, lines 16-25).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Hauf as modified by Kugler does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry; and the actuator connectors are connected to one another via connecting portions.
Oshima discloses wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry (Figs. 2-6, para. [0023], [0029], truss 6 is a base of supporting mirror 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry as taught by Oshima as the rib structure in the optical element as taught by Hauf as modified by Kugler since including wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry is commonly used in supporting an optical element to prevent the surface accuracy from being degraded by deformation of the mirror (Oshima, paras. [0007]).
Hauf as modified by Kugler in view of Oshima does not appear to explicitly describe the actuator connectors are connected to one another via connecting portions.
Holderer discloses the actuator connectors are connected to one another via connecting portions (Figs. 1-5, col. 2, lines 14-6col. 3, lines 1-25, levers 5 and 12 are connected by connecting location 15, and solid pivoting joints 7, 8 are connected to each other and levers 5 and 12 through connecting portions of the mount ring 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the actuator connectors are connected to one another via connecting portions as taught by Holderer in the optical element as taught by Hauf as modified by Kugler in view of Oshima since including wherein the actuator connectors are connected to one another via connecting portions is commonly used to mount an optical element with a compact structure in a stress-isolated assembly while allowing the desired displacement of the optical element (Holderer, col. 1, lines 32-37, col. 1, lines 51-57, col. 3, lines 16-25).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauf in view of Kugler as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Oshima and Dorobantu.
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Hauf as modified by Kugler does not appear to explicitly describe further comprising a plurality of measurement targets configured to interact with a measurement beam, wherein the measurement targets are on the base portion, and the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry.
Oshima discloses wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry (Figs. 2-6, para. [0023], [0029], truss 6 is a base of supporting mirror 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry as taught by Oshima as the rib structure in the optical element as taught by Hauf as modified by Kugler since including wherein the rib structure has a truss-like geometry or honeycomb-like geometry is commonly used in supporting an optical element to prevent the surface accuracy from being degraded by deformation of the mirror (Oshima, paras. [0007]).
Hauf as modified by Kugler in view of Oshima does not appear to explicitly describe a plurality of measurement targets configured to interact with a measurement beam, wherein the measurement targets are on the base portion.
Dorobantu discloses a plurality of measurement targets configured to interact with a measurement beam, wherein the measurement targets are on the base portion (Figs. 4-10, paras. [0063], [0077]-[0079], [0087]-[0088], sensors 124a, 124b direct measurement beams to distinct regions 126a, 126, on body 102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a plurality of measurement targets configured to interact with a measurement beam, wherein the measurement targets are on the base portion as taught by Dorobantu in the optical element as taught by Hauf as modified by Kugler in view of Oshima since including a plurality of measurement targets configured to interact with a measurement beam, wherein the measurement targets are on the base portion is commonly used to provide a contactless sensor system to determine the position of the optical element in an XYZ coordinate system (Dorobantu, paras. [0005], [0077]-[0078]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA A. RIDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7538. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30AM-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.
/CHRISTINA A RIDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights