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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the Applicant argues that Feyrer fails to disclose the stator segments being “configured to maintain the rotor in a vertical position at a distance from the stator module surfaces” pointing toward the air bearing as the feature to hold the carriages in the vertical position. The Examiner disagrees for at least the following. With respect to the contention that the air bearing is the sole apparatus maintaining the vertical position the carriage, the Examiner first points toward the definition of an air bearing, an apparatus for reducing friction between two or more parts by maintaining a film of air between said parts. While, the air bearing would indeed help in maintaining a vertical position between the stator and the carriage, the use for the device is so that stator and carriage do not wear on one another. Further, the vertical position of a planar motor made of magnets and stator coils will be produced from the interaction between the two components magnetic fields. Thus, the vertical position of the carriage in Feyrer is produced from the carriage and the stator interacting magnetically with one another. Therefore, the contention that Feyrer fails to disclose the maintenance of the vertical position of the carriage fails.
Further, the Applicant argues that Feyrer fails to disclose "the first stator module and the second stator module are arranged at a distance from one another and a gap is formed thereby," where "the gap width is smaller than or equal to the stator segment width." The Examiner disagrees for at least the following. As stated below Feyrer discloses the gap as modules 7 are placed adjacent one another, but necessarily have some gap due to machining tolerances of the side surfaces 12. Additionally, Feyrer also discloses the stator modules can be implemented in irregular patterns in paragraph 76, the stator module 7 produces a magnetic field over almost the entire segment in paragraph 83, and that the key factor for controlling the carriage’s is the stator module’s position in the z-axis in paragraph 112. Taken together, Feyrer clearly discloses that there is a gap between the stator modules in both arrangement and magnetic field, and such a gap is inconsequential to the control of the carriage’s movement. As, such the argument is not convincing because of Feyrer’s disclosure. Therefore, for at least the above-stated reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Feyrer (US 20200223645 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Feyrer discloses an assembly (1) of stator modules (support modules 7, Examiner notes that a plurality of modules 7 make up the supporting surface 3) for a planar drive system (figure 1, abstract), comprising: a first stator module (support modules 7) and a second stator module (support modules 7), the first stator module and the second stator module each having a stator surface (see at least figure 1 and 8, air bearing plates 41), the stator surfaces each forming a continuous surface (fig. 12, support upper side 6) for movement of a rotor (fig. 12, positioning carriages 2) in a first area and in a second area (figs 1, 8 and 12), the first stator module and the second stator module each comprising (see at least figures 1, 8 and 12 all modules 7 are identical) a first stator layer (fig. 5, 43a) and a second stator layer (fig. 5, 43b), which are arranged on top of each other at right angles (see at least figs 2, 3, 5, stator layers are on top of one another); and wherein stator segments (fig. 3, 47a, 47b) are arranged in the first stator layer (fig. 3, 43a, 47a) and the second stator layer (fig. 3, 43b, 47b), wherein the stator segments of the first stator layer are arranged perpendicular to the stator segments of the second stator layer (see figs 2, 3, 5 first layer is perpendicular to second layer), the stator segments having a segment width (see figs 2, 3, 5) and being configured such that they are energizable (paragraph 86 “For this, the wire sections are interconnected correspondingly with one another and/or with the control circuit. In the example shown in FIG. 3, the wire sections of the same wire section group are connected to one another in series.”), each stator segment comprising six conductor strips which are configured as a three-phase system (fig. 1, and paragraph 89 “As can be gathered from FIG. 5, the x-planes 48a of the x-winding section 43a and the y-planes 48b of the y-winding section 43b are stacked alternately in the z-direction. As shown, wire sections 47a of the wire section groups 49u, 49v and 49w are arranged one next to the other in a certain order in the direction of the x-axis, and this order is repeated periodically along the direction of the x-axis.”); wherein the stator segments are configured to provide a magnetic field for interacting with magnet arrangements of the rotor (fig. 1, carriages 2) of the planar drive system in order to drive and/or hold the rotor (see at least figure 1, positioning movement 4), the magnetic field being configured to maintain the rotor in a vertical position at a distance from the stator module surfaces (see figure 12; 2 is gapped above upper side 6) and to move it in a horizontal direction (fig. 1, positioning movement 4); and wherein the first stator module and the second stator module are arranged at a distance from one another and a gap is formed thereby (see figure 1, modules 7 are placed adjacent one another, but necessarily have some gap due to machining tolerances of the side surfaces 12), wherein the gap has a gap width, wherein the gap width is smaller than or equal to the stator segment width (See at least figure 12, gap width between the support modules would need to be small due to machining and connection tolerances. Additionally, a PHOSITA would size the gap such that it is small enough so as to not interfere with the magnetic field being generated between adjacent modules to allow the adjacent modules to control movement of the rotor from one module to the next as shown in figure 1).
With respect to claim 2, Feyrer discloses the first stator module is arranged in a moveable manner (paragraph 42 “a plurality of support modules which are able to be arranged one after another or are arranged one after another modularly in the direction of the x-axis and/or in the direction of the y-axis”), wherein the first stator module is movable in such a way that the gap width is variably changed (Examiner is interpreting paragraph 42 and the need to maintain close contact in order to fully control the positioning carriages as encompassing the variable width of the gap).
With respect to claim 15, Feyrer discloses an assembly (1) of stator modules (support modules 7, Examiner notes that a plurality of modules 7 make up the supporting surface 3) comprising: a first stator module (support modules 7) and a second stator module (support modules 7), the first stator module and the second stator module each having a stator surface (see at least figure 1 and 8, air bearing plates 41), the stator surfaces each forming a continuous surface (fig. 12, support upper side 6) for movement in a first area and in a second area (figs 1, 8 and 12) and at least one rotor (fig. 12, positioning carriages 2), wherein the rotor comprises a plurality of magnet arrangements which are effective in a drive direction of the rotor and are arranged next to one another in the drive direction for driving and/or holding the rotor (fig. 12, magnetic poles 24), each having a magnetization period width (k) (fig. 12, magnetic poles 24 have a period width) wherein the first stator module and the second stator module each comprising (see at least figures 1, 8 and 12 all modules 7 are identical) a first stator layer (fig. 5, 43a) and a second stator layer (fig. 5, 43b), which are arranged on top of each other at right angles (see at least figs 2, 3, 5, stator layers are on top of one another); and wherein stator segments (fig. 3, 47a, 47b) are arranged in the first stator layer (fig. 3, 43a, 47a) and the second stator layer (fig. 3, 43b, 47b), wherein the stator segments of the first stator layer are arranged perpendicular to the stator segments of the second stator layer (see figs 2, 3, 5 first layer is perpendicular to second layer), the stator segments having a segment width (see figs 2, 3, 5) and being configured such that they are energizable (paragraph 86 “For this, the wire sections are interconnected correspondingly with one another and/or with the control circuit. In the example shown in FIG. 3, the wire sections of the same wire section group are connected to one another in series.”), the magnetization period width corresponding to the segment width (see figure 12, stator and rotor magnetization correspond to one another) wherein the stator segments are configured to provide a magnetic field for interacting with magnet arrangements of the rotor (fig. 1, carriages 2) of the planar drive system in order to drive and/or hold the rotor (see at least figure 1, positioning movement 4), the magnetic field being configured to maintain the rotor in a vertical position at a distance from the stator module surfaces (see figure 12; 2 is gapped above upper side 6) and to move it in a horizontal direction (fig. 1, positioning movement 4); and wherein the first stator module and the second stator module are arranged at a distance from one another and a gap is formed as a result (see figure 1, modules 7 are placed adjacent one another, but necessarily have some gap due to machining tolerances of the side surfaces 12), the gap having a gap width of at most half a number of the magnet arrangements which are effective in a drive direction of the rotor multiplied by the magnetization period width.(See at least figure 12, gap width between the support modules would need to be small due to machining and connection tolerances. Additionally, a PHOSITA would size the gap such that it is small enough so as to not interfere with the magnetic field being generated between adjacent modules to allow the adjacent modules to control movement of the rotor from one module to the next as shown in figure 1).
With respect to claim 17, Feyrer discloses the rotor comprises two magnet arrangements effective in the drive direction of the rotor and arranged side by side in the drive direction (see figure 12, magnetic poles are arranged side by side in drive direction).
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 3-9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feyrer in view of Shibazaki (US 20150301458 A1)
With respect to claim 3, Feyrer teaches the above-mentioned limitations, but does not teach “wherein at least one functional element is arranged in the region of the gap.”
Shibazaki teaches wherein at least one functional element is arranged in the region of the gap (paragraph 49 “These openings 56 and 57 are made to open/close by opening and shutting doors 63 and 64”).
With respect to claim 4, Feyrer teaches the above-mentioned limitations, but does not teach “the functional element comprises a movable door.”
Shibazaki teaches the functional element comprises a movable door (paragraph 49 “These openings 56 and 57 are made to open/close by opening and shutting doors 63 and 64”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the stator and rotor of Feyrer with the movable door of Shibazaki in order to seal the functional area from outside interferences.
With respect to claim 5, Feyrer teaches the above-mentioned limitations, but does not teach “wherein the movable door has a closed position and an open position, wherein in the closed position the movable door is partially arranged within the gap between the first stator module and the second stator module.”
Shibazaki teaches wherein the movable door has a closed position and an open position (paragraph 49 “These openings 56 and 57 are made to open/close by opening and shutting doors 63 and 64”), wherein in the closed position the movable door is partially arranged within the gap between the first stator module and the second stator module (see figure 4, openings 63 and 64 are between moves 26x/y).
With respect to claim 6, Feyrer teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “wherein a housing encloses at least the first stator module with the movable door, wherein the housing is configured to be gas- tight and/or fluid-tight and/or particle-tight.”
Shibazaki teaches a housing encloses at least the first stator module with the movable door, wherein the housing is configured to be gas-tight and/or fluid-tight and/or particle-tight. (paragraph 81 “Therefore, pressurized gas (high-pressure air) is sent from gas supply device 82 into pipeline 74, and by making the pressurized gas blow out into air chamber 72 from exhausting port 73, the inside of air chamber 72 can be turned into positive pressure with respect to the space outside.” Examiner is interpreting the positive pressure inside the chamber with the doors as making the chamber gas/particle tight).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the stator and rotor of Feyrer the movable, particulate sealed door of Shibazaki in order to seal the functional area from outside interferences.
With respect to claim 7, Feyrer teaches wherein the assembly of stator modules comprises a third stator module (fig. 1 and throughout support modules 7).
Feyrer not teach “the housing comprises a further movable door, and wherein the further movable door has a closed position and an open position, wherein in the closed position the further movable door is arranged partially within the further gap between the first stator module and the third stator module.”
Shibazaki teaches the housing comprises a further movable door (paragraph 49 “These openings 56 and 57 are made to open/close by opening and shutting doors 63 and 64”), and wherein the further movable door has a closed position and an open position, wherein in the closed position the further movable door is arranged partially within the further gap between the first stator module and the third stator module (paragraph 49 “These openings 56 and 57 are made to open/close by opening and shutting doors 63 and 64”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the stator and rotor Feyrer with the movable door of Shibazaki in order to seal the functional area from outside interferences.
With respect to claim 8, Feyrer teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “wherein the functional element comprises a light source and a light detector, wherein the light source and the light detector are configured to carry out a detection of a moving rotor and/or a detection of a movement of an object between the light source and the light detector.”
Shibazaki teaches the functional element comprises a light source and a light detector (paragraph 24 “Here, in exposure apparatuses such as a scanner, normally, while components of each section described above except for the light source”), wherein the light source and the light detector are configured to carry out a detection of a moving rotor and/or a detection of a movement of an object between the light source and the light detector (paragraph 26 “Positional information (including rotation quantity information in the θz direction) within an XY plane of reticle stage RST is constantly measured at a predetermined resolution, for example, at a resolution of around 0.25 nm, by a reticle stage position measurement system 15 (not shown in FIG. 1, refer to FIG. 6) including,” Examiner is interpreting the positional information as detecting movement of the object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the stator and rotor Feyrer with the optical tracking of Shibazaki in order etch and track the wafer through manufacturing.
With respect to claim 9, Feyrer teaches the above-mentioned limitations, but does not teach “said functional element provides an air curtain.”
Shibazaki teaches said functional element provides an air curtain (paragraph 81 “Therefore, pressurized gas (high-pressure air) is sent from gas supply device 82 into pipeline 74, and by making the pressurized gas blow out into air chamber 72 from exhausting port 73, the inside of air chamber 72 can be turned into positive pressure with respect to the space outside.” Examiner is interpreting the positive pressure as an air curtain).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the stator and rotor of Feyrer with the movable, particulate sealed door of Shibazaki in order to seal the functional area from outside interferences.
With respect to claim 13, Feyrer teaches the above-mentioned limitations, but does not teach “the functional element comprises a suction device.”
Shibazaki teaches the functional element comprises a suction device(paragraph 33 “In wafer table 92, a wafer holder (not shown), for example, of a pin chuck method that holds wafer W by vacuum chucking and the like, and a plate 93 (refer to FIGS. 1 to 3) that has a circular opening formed slightly larger than the outer diameter of the wafer holder, or to be more specific, larger from around 0.1 to 2 mm than the diameter of wafer W mounted and held by suction on the wafer holder, are equipped. “)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the stator and rotor of Feyrer with the movable, suction element of Shibazaki in order to maintain control over the wafer.
With respect to claim 14, Feyrer teaches the above-mentioned limitations, but does not teach “wherein the functional element comprises a retaining element.”
Shibazaki teaches the functional element comprises a retaining element (paragraph 33 “In wafer table 92, a wafer holder (not shown), for example, of a pin chuck method that holds wafer W by vacuum chucking and the like, and a plate 93 (refer to FIGS. 1 to 3) that has a circular opening formed slightly larger than the outer diameter of the wafer holder, or to be more specific, larger from around 0.1 to 2 mm than the diameter of wafer W mounted and held by suction on the wafer holder, are equipped. “)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the stator and rotor of Feyrer with the movable, suction element of Shibazaki in order to maintain control over the wafer.
With respect to claim 17, Feyrer teaches the above-mentioned limitations, but does not teach “wherein at least one functional element is arranged in the region of the gap.”
Shibazaki teaches wherein at least one functional element is arranged in the region of the gap (paragraph 49 “These openings 56 and 57 are made to open/close by opening and shutting doors 63 and 64”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the stator and rotor of Feyrer with the movable door of Shibazaki in order to seal the functional area from outside interferences.
With respect to claim 19, Feyrer in view of Shibazaki teaches the above-mentioned limitations, Feyrer further teaches a minimum gap width is provided (See at least figure 12, gap width between the support modules would need to be small due to machining and connection tolerances. Additionally, a PHOSITA would size the gap such that it is small enough so as to not interfere with the magnetic field being generated between adjacent modules to allow the adjacent modules to control movement of the rotor from one module to the next as shown in figure 1).
With respect to claim 20, Feyrer in view of Shibazaki teaches the above-mentioned limitations, Feyrer further teaches a minimum gap width corresponds to a width of one of the conductor strips in the stator segments (See at least figure 12, gap width between the support modules would need to be small due to machining and connection tolerances. Additionally, a PHOSITA would size the gap such that it is small enough so as to not interfere with the magnetic field being generated between adjacent modules to allow the adjacent modules to control movement of the rotor from one module to the next as shown in figure 1).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feyrer in view of Senn (US 20160194158 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Feyrer teaches the above-mentioned limitations, but does not teach “wherein the functional element comprises a cleaning brush, wherein the cleaning brush is configured to be stationary and/or rotatable.”
Senn teaches the functional element comprises a cleaning brush, wherein the cleaning brush (fig. 2B, brush 260) is configured to be stationary and/or rotatable (paragraph 66 “One or more brushes for cleaning the transport track, in particular guide rail 240, are rotatably mounted to second partial element 200d, where a gear wheel connected to the one or more brushes for generating a rotation of the brushes meshes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine Feyrer with the movable brush of Senn in order to clean inside the functional area.
With respect to claim 11, Feyrer teaches the above-mentioned limitations, but does not teach “, wherein the functional element comprises a nozzle for applying a fluid.”
Senn teaches the functional element comprises a nozzle for applying a fluid (fig. 2C, nozzle 270).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the stator and rotor of Feyrer with the nozzle of Senn in order to clean inside the functional area.
With respect to claim 12, Feyrer teaches the above-mentioned limitations, but does not teach “wherein the functional element comprises a disinfection element”
Senn teaches the functional element comprises a disinfection element (paragraph 40 “Cleaning the transport track at the predetermined location can there also comprise sterilizing or disinfecting the predetermined location. For cleaning, the cleaning device can comprises a brush, a compressed air nozzle, a nozzle for spraying cleaning agent,”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the stator and rotor of Feyrer with the disinfection element of Senn in order to clean inside the functional area.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RILEY OWEN STOUT whose telephone number is (571)272-0068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:30pm EST.
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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached on (571)272-3560. 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.
/R.O.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834