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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 June 2020 has been considered by the examiner.
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 4-19 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.
Claims 4-9 are indefinite as it is unclear what the claimed conductor structure is relative to “a negative direction of the second direction” and “a positive direction of the second direction”. The specification describes these alternatively as the -Y and -X directions (see, e.g., ¶[0061]), but they appear to refer to specific points or locations rather than directions.
Regarding claims 10 & 17-19, the formulas are indefinite as the basis for the parameters λx and λy is not established.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bader (US 5,763,965) in view of Hazelton (US 6,144,119).
Regarding claim 1, Bader teaches a displacement device, comprising:
a stator magnet array comprising a plurality of first (N) magnets and a plurality of second (S) magnets, the first magnets and the second magnets being arranged periodically in a first plane (Figs.5a-5b); and
a rotor comprising at least a first X-coil array of first X-coil 53b and a first Y-coil array of first Y-coil 53a;
wherein a body portion of the first X-coil array (first X-coil 53b) is disposed in a first conductor layer (i.e., below coil 53a) that is substantially parallel to the first plane, and a body portion of the first Y-coil array (i.e., first Y-coil 53a) is disposed in a second conductor layer that is substantially parallel to the first plane, the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer are disposed at a distance from each other in a direction perpendicular to the first plane (i.e., coils 53a & 53b arranged crosswise one above the other; c.8:54-55; Figs.5a-5b);
wherein the first X-coil 53b comprises a pair of first XX conductors (not numbered, long sides of rectangular coil) extending in a first direction and a pair of first XY conductors (not numbered, short sides) extending in a second direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction (Fig.5a); the first direction and the second direction are both substantially parallel to the first plane (Figs.5a-5b); the first direction and the second direction are substantially perpendicular with each other (Fig.5a); and at least one of the pair of the first XX conductors (short sides) of the first X-coil 53b is disposed in the second conductor layer (i.e., in layer of Y-coil array 53a; Fig.5b), and the pair of the first XY conductors (long sides) are both disposed in the first conductor layer (i.e., below Y-coil array 53a; Figs.5a-5b).
PNG
media_image1.png
788
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bader differs only in that the rotor first X- and Y-coil arrays do not comprise a plurality of first X-coils and first Y-coils, respectively.
But, Hazelton teaches a displacement device for semiconductor manufacturing including a motor 10 with a stator comprising a magnet array 24 comprising a plurality of first (N) magnets and a plurality of second (S) magnets (i.e., linear magnet arrays 62 arranged in x- and y-directions; c.5:39-40; Figs.3&8-9), and a rotor (top plate) 66 comprising at least a first X-coil array 22 of a plurality of first X-coils 64 (with legs 84 arranged in x-direction) and a first Y-coil array 22 of a plurality of first Y-coils 64 (with legs 84 arranged in y-direction; c.5:31-c.6:59; Figs.1,3&17-18). The coil arrays 22 may be attached to the stage and movable relative to the fixed magnet arrays (c.4:16-18), i.e., the coils are part of the rotor and the magnets part of the stator. The plural coils of the coil arrays interact with the magnetic fields of the magnet arrays to move the member relative to the first and second coil arrays, and the plural coil arrays provide constant force of the rotor along a respective x or y linear direction in operation (c.2:8-25; c.3:65-c.4:1).
PNG
media_image2.png
274
521
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to modify Bader and provide the rotor first X- and Y-coil arrays with a plurality of first X-coils and first Y-coils, respectively, since Hazelton teaches a plurality of X- and Y-coils would have been desirable to move the rotor with constant force relative to the stator in the x- and y-direction.
Claims 2-3 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bader & Hazelton, further in view of Beakley et al. (RE 34,674).
The combination of Bader & Hazelton teaches the first Y-coils comprises a pair of first YX conductors extending in the first direction and a pair of first YY conductors extending in the second direction (i.e., Bader’s Y-coil 53a includes short and long sides extending in x- and y-directions, respectively, with Hazelton further teaching plural coils) but does not further teach “at least one of the pair of the first YY conductors of the first Y-coil is disposed in the first conductor layer, and the pair of the first YX conductors are disposed in the second conductor layer.”
But, Beakley teaches a linear motor including a stator magnet array 10/12 and a coil assembly 16 that is moved in a linear direction (c.5:20-c.6:32; Fig.3). The coil assemblies comprise plural individual coils 32 each with a pair of first YY conductors 34 (coil sides) 34 disposed a first conductor layer and a pair of YX conductors (coil ends) 36 disposed in a second conductor layer (i.e., bent with ends located in areas фA, фB, фC; Figs.4-5). By bending the coil ends such that they are disposed in a second conductor layer the coils are easily and separately wound and minimize the air gap required in the motor M, while reducing the stress on the coil wire (c.6:33-40).
PNG
media_image3.png
745
557
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
582
554
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been further obvious before the effective filing date to modify the
pair of first YX conductors extending in the first direction and a pair of first YY conductors extending in the second direction of the first Y-coils of Bader & Hazelton such that “at least one of the pair of the first YY conductors of the first Y-coil is disposed in the first conductor layer, and the pair of the first YX conductors are disposed in the second conductor layer” since
Beakley teaches that this would have enabled easy and separate winding of the coils, minimized the air gap and reduced the stress on the coil wire.
Regarding claim 3, as noted above with respect to features in claims 1-2, the combination in particular Bader & Hazelton teaches plural first X-coils comprising a pair of XX conductors extending in the first direction and a pair of XY conductors extending in the second direction; at least one of the pair of the XX conductors of the X-coil is disposed in the second conductor layer, and the pair of the XY conductors are disposed in the first conductor layer, and Bader, Hazelton & Beakley further teach a Y-coil array of a plurality of Y-coils; the Y-coils comprises a pair of YX conductors extending in the first direction and a pair of YY conductors extending in the second direction; at least one of the pair of the YY conductors of the Y-coil is disposed in the first conductor layer, and the pair of the YX conductors are disposed in the second conductor layer. With respect to “second” X- and Y-coil arrays with the noted features, this is disclosed in that the combination, in particular Hazelton, teaches a plurality of X- and Y-coils, such that any plurality applied to Bader’s X- and Y-coil arrays could be designated a “first” grouping of X- and Y-coils in “first” X- and Y-arrays with the remainder comprising a “second” grouping of X- and Y-coils in “second” X- and Y-arrays, respectively.
Regarding claims 10, 17 & 19, as best understood, the equations relate the distance Cn between the pair of first YX conductors (C121) of the first Y-coil and the distance between the pair of first XY conductors (C112) of the first X-coil extending in the first and second directions, respectively, to λ, the distance between adjacent homopolar magnets in the first and second directions, respectively (i.e., pole pitch; see, e.g., Figs.1-3&9).
But, Hazelton teaches such an arrangement in Fig.7A of US 6,188,147 which is incorporated by reference 1, where the distance between the conductors forming the long sides of coils 710, 712, 714 is half the distance between homopolar poles. Per MPEP 2131.02, a species anticipates a claim to a genus: “A generic claim cannot be allowed to an applicant if the prior art discloses a species falling within the claimed genus.” In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 411, 125 USPQ 345, 347 (CCPA 1960); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 11-16 & 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 4-7, understood as relating to the position of the various conductors in the first and second conductor layers relative to each other (e.g., Figs.1-2), the prior art of record does not further teach:
“the first XX conductor disposed in the second conductor layer is provided between the first YX conductor and the second YX conductor which are closest to a negative direction of the second direction, and the second XX conductor disposed in the second conductor layer is provided between the first YX conductor and the second YX conductor which are closest to a positive direction of the second direction” [sic] (claim 4); or
“the first YY conductor disposed in the first conductor layer is provided between the first XY conductor and the second XY conductor which are closest to a positive direction of the first direction, and the second YY conductor disposed in the first conductor layer is provided between the first XY conductor and the second XY conductor which are closest to a negative direction of the first direction” [sic] (claim 5); or
“the first XX conductor disposed in the second conductor layer is provided at a side closer to a negative direction of the second direction than one of the first YX conductors or one of the second YX conductors which is closest to the negative direction of the second direction, and the second XX conductor disposed in the second conductor layer is provided at a side closer to the positive direction of the second direction than one of the first YX conductors or one of the second YX conductors which is closest to the positive direction of the second direction” [sic] (claim 6); or
“the first YY conductor disposed in the first conductor layer is provided at a side closer to a positive direction of the first direction than one of the first XY conductors or one of the second XY conductors which is closest to the positive direction of the first direction, and the second YY conductor disposed in the first conductor layer is provided at a side closer to
Regarding claims 8-9, understood as relating distances dx and dyy of the coil arrays’ boundaries to λ, the distance between adjacent homopolar magnets in the first and second directions (e.g., Figs.1-2), the prior art of record does not appear to further teach the various formulas.
It is noted these determinations are made on the basis of keyword searches to limit the scope of the search to one that can be conducted in the limited time available. See the search notes for details.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BURTON S MULLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2029. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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, Tulsidas C Patel can be reached on 571-272-2098. 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.
/BURTON S MULLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
1 See Hazelton at c.4:28-41.