`
`-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`that the Examiner reconsiderall outstanding objections and rejections and that they be withdrawn.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`withdrawn.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
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ ChargeStill Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site