DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 7/26/2022 and 2/12/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because "a computer-readable storage medium" is directed to a signal per se. It is suggested that claims 17-20 be amended to recite “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” to overcome this rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 7-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, US 20120105833 A1 (“Wu”) in view of Kumagai, US 5777899 A (“Kumagai”).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses an electronic device comprising: at least one processor (Fig. 1, processing device 40, Paragraph [0017]); and a storage device coupled to the at least one processor and storing instructions for execution by the at least one processor (Fig. 1, processing device 40, Paragraph [0017]; Fig. 4, processing device 40, calculating module 45, a determining module 47, and a display module 49, Paragraph [0017]) to cause the at least one processor to: control a laser device (Fig. 2, detection device 30, Paragraph [0016]) to emit laser light to a plurality of points on a motion platform and calculate a height value of each of the plurality of points (Fig. 4, three non-collinear points O1, O2, O3 with (X, Y, Z) coordinates, non-optical surface 133, Paragraph [0016]); calculate tilt data of the motion platform according to the height value of each of the plurality of points (Fig. 4, angle theta, Paragraph [0018]; Fig. 5, S407, Paragraph [0024]); determine position compensation data of the motion platform according to the tilt data (Fig. 3, determining module, Paragraph [0019]; Fig. 5, S409, Paragraph [0025]);
Wu does not teach: and control the motion platform to move according to the position compensation data, and adjust a position of the motion platform to a horizontal position.
However, Kumagai teaches a processing means that includes a correction amount calculation means and horizontal position correction error storage means that corrects the inclination error in the compensator (Fig. 8, processing means 16, correction amount calculation means 1676, horizontal position correction error storage means 1677, Col. 11 lines 34-47; See also Fig. 12 and Col. 12 lines 12-17).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wu’s alignment and processing device by adjusting the alignment device after an inclination is calculated, which is disclosed by Kumagai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to remove the horizontal position error from any vibrations, as suggested by Kumagai (Col. 11 lines 48-51).
Regarding claim 2, Wu, as modified in view of Kumagai, discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the motion platform carries a first component (Wu, Fig. 1, lens module 10, barrel 11, Paragraph [0013]), the at least one processor is further caused to: after the position of the motion platform carrying the first component is adjusted to the horizontal position, assemble a second component to the first component (Wu, Fig. 1, lens module 10, lens 13, Paragraph [0013], [0015]).
Regarding claim 7, Wu, as modified in view of Kumagai, discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further caused to: adjust a plurality of motion platforms to the horizontal position, according to an average value of the position compensation data of a preset number of motion platforms or the position compensation data determined within a preset time period (Wu, Fig. 1, alignment device 20 adjusts both non-optical surface 133 and V-shaped groove 211 which holds barrel 11, Paragraph [0013], [0015]).
Regarding claim 8, Wu, as modified in view of Kumagai, discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further caused to: display the tilt data and the position compensation data of the motion platform on a display device (Wu, Fig. 1, display panel 491, Fig. 3, display module 49, Paragraph [0019]).
Claims 9-10 and 15-16 are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 1-2 and 7-8 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 17 contains the same claim limitations as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 3, 5, 11, 13, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, as modified in view of Kumagai, in further view of Lin, TW 201743402 A (“Lin”).
Regarding claim 3, Wu, as modified in view of Kumagai, discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of points comprise (Wu, Fig. 4, three non-collinear points O1, O2, O3 on outer portion of non-optical surface 133, Paragraph [0016]), the at least one processor is further caused to: […]; determine the height value of each of the (Wu, Fig. 4, z component of coordinates of coordinates of three non-collinear points O1, O2, O3, Paragraph [0016])
Wu, as modified in view of Kumagai, does not teach: control the laser device to move to one side of a plane, the plane being defined by the four endpoints of the motion platform; control the laser device to move to right above each of the four endpoints, and emit the laser light to each of the four endpoints and receive reflected laser light.
However, Lin teaches a laser generator disposed on a moving mechanism that provides three-axis direction displacement. The laser generator performs a horizontal detection on at least three points above the platform through the moving mechanism. (Fig. 1, laser generator 21, platform 1, moving mechanism 20, Paragraph [0035], [0038]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wu’s detection device by attaching the detection device to a moving mechanism to take measurements of at least three points on a surface, which is disclosed by Lin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to require no need for factory repairs or calibration, as suggested by Lin (Paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 5, Wu, as modified in view of Kumagai and Lin, discloses the electronic device according to claim 3, wherein the tilt data comprises a tilt direction and a tilt angle of the motion platform (Wu, Fig. 4, three non-collinear points O1, O2, O3 on outer portion of non-optical surface 133, Paragraph [0016]), the at least one processor is further caused to: calculate a height difference between two endpoints of the plane on the motion platform (Wu, Fig. 4, angle theta, coordinates of non-collinear points O1, O2, O3, Paragraph [0018], Equation 1 considers height different between points); calculate the tilt angle according to the height difference between the two endpoints and a length of a side between the two endpoints (Wu, Fig. 4, angle theta, Paragraph [0018], Equation 1 depends on distance between points); determine the tilt direction according to the tilt angle (Kumagai, Fig. 12, correction amount, Col. 12 lines 12-17); and determine a rotation direction of the motion platform to be an opposite direction of the tilt direction, and determine a rotation angle of the motion platform to be the tilt angle (Kumagai, Fig. 8, processing means 16, correction amount calculation means 1676, horizontal position correction error storage means 1677, Col. 11 lines 34-47; See also Fig. 12 and Col. 12 lines 12-17).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wu’s alignment and processing device by adjusting the alignment device after an inclination is calculated, which is disclosed by Kumagai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to remove the horizontal position error from any vibrations, as suggested by Kumagai (Col. 11 lines 48-51).
Claims 11 and 13 are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 3 and 5 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 18 and 20 contain the same claim limitations as claims 3 and 5 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 4, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, as modified in view of Kumagai and Lin, in further view of Mizumura et al., US 20230178335 A1 (“Mizumura”).
Regarding claim 4, Wu, as modified in view of Kumagai and Lin, discloses the electronic device according to claim 3, wherein the tilt data comprises a height difference between each of the four endpoints and the horizontal position (Wu, Fig. 4, angle theta, Paragraph [0018], Equation 1).
Wu, as modified in view of Kumagai and Lin, does not teach: the at least one processor is further caused to: calculate an average value of the height values of the four endpoints; obtain the height difference between each of the four endpoints and the horizontal position by subtracting the average value from the height value of each of the four endpoints; and determine a moving direction and a moving distance of the motion platform according to the height difference between each of the four endpoints and the horizontal position.
However, Mizumura teaches a method that uses laser displacement sensors to measure the gap between surfaces to indicate an inclination. Four locations on a surface are measured, the average of the measurements is calculated, and it is determined whether a measurement deviates from the average significantly. If there is a deviation, the displacement drive units alter the height of the surface accordingly (Fig. 4, steps S7-S10, Paragraphs [0079]-[0082].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processing device, disclosed by Wu, as modified in view of Kumagai and Lin, by using deviations from the height average to determine the incline of the surface, which is disclosed by Mizumura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to perform the process on a limited area, as suggested by Mizumura (Paragraph [0083]).
Claim 12 is a is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 19 contains the same claim limitations as claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, as modified in view of Kumagai, in further view of Han, KR 100503261 B1 (“Han”).
Regarding claim 6, Wu, as modified in view of Kumagai, discloses the electronic device according to claim 1.
Wu, as modified in view of Kumagai, does not teach: wherein the at least one processor is further caused to: control a six-axis motion device to adjust the position of the motion platform to the horizontal position according to the position compensation data.
However, Han teaches an automatic leveler for semiconductor equipment that includes height-adjusting legs in each corner of the stand. The horizontality of the stand may be adjusted using two or more of the legs. (Fig. 1, stand 104, height-adjusting legs 102a, 102b, 102c, 102d, Page 5).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the alignment device, disclosed by Wu, as modified in view of Kumagai, by height adjusting legs at each corner of the platform, which is disclosed by Han. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to adjust the horizontality of equipment using a detection signal, as suggested by Han (Page 5, lines 1-7).
Claim 14 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. 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.
/RACHEL NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645