Reply to Office Action of November 27, 2024
`
`-7-
`
`ASMLNetherlands B.V.
`Application No. 18/251,261
`
`Remarks
`
`Reconsideration of this Application is respectfully requested.
`
`Uponentry of the foregoing amendment, claims 20-39 are pending in the application, with
`
`claims 20, 24, 28-29, 34-36, and 38 being the independent claims. Claims 29, 32, 25 and 37 are
`
`sought to be amended. New claim 39 is sought to be added, support the amendment can be found at
`
`least in claim 32 prior to amendment. These changes are believed to introduce no new matter, and
`
`their entry is respectfully requested.
`
`Based on the above amendmentand the following remarks, Applicant respectfully requests
`
`that the Examiner reconsiderall outstanding objections and rejections and that they be withdrawn.
`
`Statement ofSubstance ofInterview
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.133(b), Applicant provides the following Statement of Substance
`
`of the Interview. Applicant expresses appreciation to ExaminerRiddle for the courtesy of a
`
`telephonic interview with Applicant’s representative Don Featherstone (Reg. No. 33,876) on 17
`
`December2024.
`
`Applicant agrees with the Examiner’s summary of whatthe parties discussed as set forth in
`
`the “Applicant-Initiated Interview Summary” mailed 23 December 2024.
`
`Objection to the Claims
`
`Claim 35 is objected to for informalities. Applicant respectfully traverses.
`
`Without acquiescing to the propriety of the objections and solely to expedite the
`
`prosecution, claim 35 is sought to be amendedto correct the preamble.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the objection be reconsidered and
`
`withdrawn.
`
`Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
`
`Claims 29-33 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-ATA),
`
`second paragraph,as allegedly being indefinite. Applicant respectfully traverses.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3857.2970001
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of November 27, 2024
`
`-8-
`
`ASMLNetherlands B.V.
`Application No. 18/251,261
`
`Without acquiescing to the propriety of the rejections and solely to expedite the prosecution,
`
`claims 29, 33 and 37 are sought to be amended.
`
`Claim 29 has been amendedto correct antecedent basis for“the first conditioning fluid
`
`reservoir.” The rejection of claim 29, as well as its dependent claims 30-33, have therefore been
`
`overcome.
`
`Additionally, claim 37 has been amendedto correct the “Oxford” comma,also knownasthe
`
`serial commato avoid confusion. The rejection of claim 37 has therefore been overcome.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections be reconsidered and
`
`withdrawn.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3857.2970001
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of November 27, 2024
`
`-9-
`
`ASMLNetherlands B.V.
`Application No. 18/251,261
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103
`
`Claims 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as allegedly being anticipated by U.S.
`Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0033499 to Van Berkeletal. (“Van Berkel”)’.
`
`Claims 20-21, 29-32, 34-35, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being
`
`unpatentable over Van Berkel in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,998,889 to Novak (“Novak”).
`
`Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Van Berkel
`
`in view of Novak as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 2010/0073649 to Nomoto (“Nomoto”).
`
`Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Van
`
`Berkel in view of Nomoto.
`
`Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Van
`
`Berkel in view of Nomoto as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Novak.
`
`Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Van Berkel
`
`in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0140946 to Tsuji et al. (“Tsuji”).
`
`Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Van Berkel
`
`in view of Novak as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of WO Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 98/42986 to Thomeet al. (“Thome”).
`
`Applicant traverses.
`
`Van Berkel and Novak (Independent Claims 20, 29, 34-35, and 38)
`
`Applicant wishesto first address the rejection of claims 20-21, 29-32, 34-35, and 38 based
`
`on the alleged obvious combination of Van Berkel and Novak. Without acquiescing to the propriety
`
`of the rejection and reserving the right to argue additional or different distinguishing features in the
`
`future, independent claims 20, 29, 34, 35 and 38 have been amendedto clarify the distinguishing
`
`features.
`
`' Applicant does not characterize Van Berkel as a whole, but only addresses the portions relied upon
`in the Office Action.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3857.2970001
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of November 27, 2024
`
`- 10-
`
`ASMLNetherlands B.V.
`Application No. 18/251,261
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3857.2970001
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of November 27, 2024
`
`-ll-
`
`ASMLNetherlands B.V.
`Application No. 18/251,261
`
`For example, claim 20, as amended, requires, inter alia:
`
`...a sub-atmospheric pressure conditioning fluid reservoir
`configured to operate at sub-atmospheric absolute pressure and to
`store at least part of a liquid conditioning fluid,
`wherein the conditioning system is for a lithographic
`apparatus,
`wherein the conditioning system is configured to condition
`one or more optical elements of the lithographic apparatus,
`wherein the one or more optical elements are conditioned
`under vacuum or a low pressure ofgas....
`
`Support for these amendments can be foundin the originally submitted application, for example,
`
`paragraphs[0055]-[0060], as well as Figures 3-8 (see corresponding U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0400785).
`
`Asdiscussed during the interview, these changes distinguish the cited art, and therefore
`
`claims 20, 29, 34, 35 and 38 are allowable. Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of
`
`claims 20, 29, 34, 35 and 38 be reconsidered and withdrawn. Dependentclaims 21 and 30-32 are
`
`likewise not rendered obviousfor at least the same reasons as the independent claims from which
`
`they respectively depend, and further in view of their own respective features. Applicant
`
`respectfully requests that the rejection be reconsidered and withdrawn.
`
`Claim 33
`
`Turning to dependentclaim 33, Thomeis not relied upon by the Office Action to disclose or
`
`suggest at least the aboverecited distinguishing features of claim 20. The applied references do not
`
`establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that this
`
`rejection of claim 33 be reconsidered and withdrawn.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3857.2970001
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of November 27, 2024
`
`-12-
`
`ASMLNetherlands B.V.
`Application No. 18/251,261
`
`Claims 36-37
`
`Independent claim 36 has been amendedin a similar manneras claim 20, and therefore
`
`distinguishes from the Office alleged teachings of Van Berkel. Dependent claim 37 is likewise not
`
`anticipated and further in view of its own respective features. Applicant respectfully requests that
`
`the rejection of claims 36 and 37 be reconsidered and withdrawn.
`
`Claims 22 and 24-28
`
`Turning to independent claims 24 and 28, neither Nomoto nor Tsuji are relied upon by the
`
`Office Action to disclose or suggest at least the above recited distinguishing features of claim 20.
`
`Dependentclaims 22 and 25-27 are likewise not rendered obviousby the allegedly obvious
`
`combination of Van Berkel and Nomoto or Tsuji for at least the same distinguishing features as the
`
`independent claims from which they respectively depend, and further in view of their own
`
`respective features. Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 22, 24-27, and 28 be
`
`reconsidered and withdrawn.
`
`Claim Objection/Allowable Subject Matter
`
`Applicant thanks the Examinerfor indicating that claim 23 is objected to as being dependent
`
`upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form includingall of
`
`the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Applicant notes the Examiner’s
`
`Statement of Reasons for Allowance presented in the Office Action. Applicant reserves the right to
`
`demonstrate that the claims are allowable over the art made of record for further reasons related to
`
`any of their recited features. Applicant further contends that reservation of this right does not give
`
`rise to any implication regarding whether the Applicant agrees with or acquiesces in the reasoning
`
`provided by the Examiner.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3857.2970001
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of November 27, 2024
`
`- 13 -
`
`ASMLNetherlands B.V.
`Application No. 18/251,261
`
`Conclusion
`
`All of the stated grounds of objection and rejection have been properly traversed,
`
`accommodated, or rendered moot. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the Examiner
`
`reconsiderall presently outstanding objections and rejections and that they be withdrawn. Applicant
`
`believes that a full and complete reply has been made to the outstanding Office Action and, as such,
`
`the present application is in condition for allowance. If the Examiner believes, for any reason, that
`
`personal communication will expedite prosecution of this application, the Examineris invited to
`
`telephone the undersigned at the numberprovided.
`
`Promptand favorable consideration of this Amendment and Reply is respectfully requested.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Donald J. Featherstone/
`
`Donald J. Featherstone
`Attorney for Applicant
`Registration No. 33,876
`
`Date:__January 16, 2025
`
`1101 K Street, NW
`10" Floor
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Main: 202-371-2600
`Direct: 202-772-8629
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3857.2970001
`
`