DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 68-82 in the reply filed on 27 April 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 79, 80, 118, and 121 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 79, “wherein at least” should be corrected to –wherein the at least--.
In claim 80, “at least one support” should be corrected to –at least one of the plurality of low-stiffness supports--.
In claim 80, “at least one actuator” should be corrected to –at least one of the at least one actuator--.
In claim 118, “the vibration reduction system includes” should be corrected to –the at least one actuator includes--.
In claim 118, “the other actuator” should be corrected to –another one of the plurality of actuators--.
In claim 121, “the vibration reduction system includes the at least one actuator that connect” should be corrected to –the at least one actuator connects--.
In claim 121, “and at least one” should be corrected to –and further comprising at least one--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 69, “a link actuator” is understood to be separate from the previously recited “at least one actuator.”
Low-stiffness is interpreted according to the specification at ¶6.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Control system recited in claims 78 and 81 is interpreted as a CPU and memory, see specification ¶59.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner’s Note
Double Patenting was considered for US 12055193 B2. In the patent, claim 12 recites “the VIS is coupled between the robot arm and an end effector; and the VIS is configured to reduce a vibration of the end effector,” where VIS is a vibration isolation system. However, there is no 112(f) interpretation on the record, and thus this claim does not require an actuator as claimed in the instant application.
Double Patenting
Claims 68-70, 72-74, 78, 81, 82, 118-123 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 6, 12, 14, 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,151,378. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as pointed out in the table below.
A robot arm system with an end effector is a machine for positioning an object. The robot arm is a movable part. The carrier is an object.
Instant
US 12151378 B2
68. A machine for positioning an object, the machine comprising:
a movable part; and
a vibration reduction system having at least one actuator located between the object and the movable part, wherein the at least one actuator reduces a magnitude of a vibration transferred from the movable part to the object so as to be less than another magnitude of vibration transferred from the movable part to the vibration reduction system.
1. A robotic vibration reduction system, comprising: a robot arm system;
a vibration reduction system that is coupled to the robot arm system; an end effector that is coupled to the vibration reduction system; and a controller; wherein the vibration reduction system comprises: a base; a carrier element; a plurality of actuator systems extending between the base and the carrier element, the plurality of actuator systems arranged to apply forces to the carrier element in multiple axes to reduce vibration and/or a position error of the carrier element, each actuator system of the plurality of actuator systems comprising a pneumatic actuator and an electric actuator; and wherein the controller is configured to control at least one of the pneumatic actuator and the electric actuator to apply force to the carrier element to reduce vibration and/or the position error of the carrier element; and wherein the vibration reduction system is located between the robot arm system and the end effector.
69. The machine of claim 68, wherein the movable part is a link in a robot that includes a link actuator that moves the link.
1. (A robot arm system is understood to have a link and link actuator)
70. The machine of claim 68, wherein the movable part is a link in a multiple degree of freedom robotic arm, and the at least one actuator is movable in multiple degrees of freedom to reduce the vibration.
1. … the plurality of actuator systems arranged to apply forces to the carrier element in multiple axes…
It is obvious to have a robot arm with multiple degrees of freedom.
72. The machine of claim 68, further comprising at least one low-stiffness support that connects the object to the movable part.
6. The robotic system of claim 1, wherein the actuator systems are low stiffness actuator systems.
73. The machine of claim 72, wherein the at least one low- stiffness support includes one of a spring, a bellows, and a pneumatic chamber.
14. The robotic system of claim 13, wherein the pneumatic actuator of each actuator system comprises a pneumatic cylinder and a piston that seals against walls of the pneumatic cylinder, and the electric actuator is positioned inside the pneumatic cylinder.
74. The machine of claim 68, further comprising a plurality of spaced apart low-stiffness supports that connect the object to the movable part.
6. The robotic system of claim 1, wherein the actuator systems are low stiffness actuator systems.
Claim 1 recites a plurality of actuator systems to apply forces in multiple axes, and it would be obvious to space these apart to avoid interference.
78. The machine of claim 72, further comprising a control system that actively controls a force produced by each low-stiffness support of the at least one low-stiffness support.
1. … the controller is configured to control at least one of the pneumatic actuator and the electric actuator…
6. The robotic system of claim 1, wherein the actuator systems are low stiffness actuator systems.
81. (Previously Presented) The machine of claim 68, further comprising a sensor assembly that provides feedback, and a control system that actively controls the at least one actuator to inhibit vibration in the movable part from being transferred to the object.
16. A method, comprising: receiving at least position data of a carrier element, the carrier element being coupled to a vibration reduction system, the vibration reduction system being located between an end effector and a robot arm system of a robotic system, the vibration reduction system comprising a plurality of actuator systems extending between a base and the carrier element, the plurality of actuator systems being arranged to apply force to the carrier element in multiple axes, each of the actuator systems comprising a pneumatic actuator and an electric actuator; determining a position error based at least in part on the position data of the carrier element; and controlling at least one pneumatic actuator and at least one electric actuator based on the position error to apply force to the end effector.
A sensor is implied by the “position data”
Claim 16 is similar to claim 1.
82. The machine of claim 68, wherein the movable part is one of a component of a processing machine, or a component of a laser processing machine, and the object is at least a portion of a laser device.
12. The robotic system of claim 11, wherein the end effector is at least a part of a laser beam machining optical system, a gripper, or a liquid applicator.
118. The machine of claim 68, wherein the vibration reduction system includes a plurality of spaced apart actuators that connect the object to the movable part, and wherein at least one of the plurality of actuators is located to generate force in a different direction from the other actuator.
Claim 1 recites a plurality of actuator systems to apply forces in multiple axes, and it would be obvious to space these apart to avoid interference.
119. The machine of claim 118, wherein the plurality of actuators generate forces in at least three different directions.
Three different directions is obvious over “multiple axes”
120. The machine of claim 118, wherein the plurality of spaced apart actuators comprises six actuators.
Number of actuators is not a patentable distinction (Duplication of parts is obvious)
121. The machine of claim 68, wherein the vibration reduction system includes the at least one actuator that connect the object to the movable part, and at least one low-stiffness support that connects the object to the movable part.
6. The robotic system of claim 1, wherein the actuator systems are low stiffness actuator systems.
122. The machine of claim 121, wherein the at least one low-stiffness support and the at least one actuator operate in parallel.
3. The robotic system of claim 1, wherein actuator systems of the plurality of actuator systems are angled relative to a longitudinal axis of the vibration reduction system, and the pneumatic actuator and the electric actuator of each actuator system are arranged in parallel.
A pneumatic actuator is understood to be a low-stiffness support.
123. The machine of claim 68, wherein the movable part is a link in a six degree of freedom robotic arm, and the at least one actuator is movable in six degrees of freedom to reduce the vibration.
Given a robotic arm, 6 degrees of freedom is not a patentable distinction.
Given “multiple axes,” 6 degrees of freedom is not a patentable distinction.
Claims 68, 69, 72, 73, 82, and 121 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 92 of copending Application No. 17/602720 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each as pointed out in the table below.
Instant
17/602720
68. A machine for positioning an object, the machine comprising:
a movable part; and
a vibration reduction system having at least one actuator located between the object and the movable part, wherein the at least one actuator reduces a magnitude of a vibration transferred from the movable part to the object so as to be less than another magnitude of vibration transferred from the movable part to the vibration reduction system.
72. A processing system that processes an object by processing light, the processing system comprising:
a movable member, a relative positional relationship between the movable member and a part of the object being changeable;an irradiation apparatus that irradiates the object with the processing light; and a connecting apparatus that connects the movable member and the irradiation apparatus so that a relative positional relationship between the movable member and the irradiation apparatus is changeable,the connecting apparatus comprising: a driving member that moves at least one of the movable member and the irradiation apparatus; and an elastic member that couples the movable member with the irradiation apparatus,wherein the movable member is a robot, and the connecting apparatus is an apparatus different from the robot.
92. (Previously Presented) The processing system according to claim 72, wherein:the connecting apparatus connects a first part of the movable member and a second part that is a part of the irradiation apparatus, a relative positional relationship between the first part and a part of the object is changeable,the elastic member reduces a vibration that is transmitted from the first part to the second part,the driving member reduced a relative displacement between the first part and the second part caused by the vibration that is transmitted from the first part to the second part.
69. (Previously Presented) The machine of claim 68, wherein the movable part is a link in a robot that includes a link actuator that moves the link.
72. … the movable member is a robot
72. (Previously Presented) The machine of claim 68, further comprising at least one low-stiffness support that connects the object to the movable part.
72. … an elastic member that couples the movable member with the irradiation apparatus
73. (Previously Presented) The machine of claim 72, wherein the at least one low- stiffness support includes one of a spring, a bellows, and a pneumatic chamber.
A spring is an obvious elastic member
82. (Previously Presented) The machine of claim 68, wherein the movable part is one of a component of a processing machine, or a component of a laser processing machine, and the object is at least a portion of a laser device.
72. … A processing system… the irradiation apparatus
121. (New) The machine of claim 68, wherein the vibration reduction system includes the at least one actuator that connect the object to the movable part, and at least one low-stiffness support that connects the object to the movable part.
72. … a connecting apparatus that connects the movable member and the irradiation apparatus… the connecting apparatus comprising: a driving member… an elastic member that couples the movable member with the irradiation apparatus
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 68-70, 81, and 118 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15 and 18 of copending Application No. 17/497585 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each as pointed out in the table below.
A payload is an object. A robot is a movable part.
Instant
17/497585
68. A machine for positioning an object, the machine comprising:
a movable part; and
a vibration reduction system having at least one actuator located between the object and the movable part, wherein the at least one actuator reduces a magnitude of a vibration transferred from the movable part to the object so as to be less than another magnitude of vibration transferred from the movable part to the vibration reduction system.
34. A machine for positioning a payload, the machine comprising:a robot assembly; and a vibration reduction assembly that reduces a magnitude of a vibration being transferred from the robot assembly to the payload so that the payload is positioned with improved precision, the vibration reduction assembly including (i) a first vibration reduction system that reduces vibration along a first axis that is oriented parallel with gravity; and (ii) a second vibration reduction system that reduces vibration along a second axis that is orthogonal to the first axis; wherein the first vibration reduction system and the second vibration reduction system are connected in series between the robot assembly and the payload.
15. The machine of claim 34 wherein the vibration reduction assembly includes an actuation system that provides controlled forces to the payload
69. (Previously Presented) The machine of claim 68, wherein the movable part is a link in a robot that includes a link actuator that moves the link.
34. …robot assembly…
70. (Previously Presented) The machine of claim 68, wherein the movable part is a link in a multiple degree of freedom robotic arm, and the at least one actuator is movable in multiple degrees of freedom to reduce the vibration.
34. …(i) a first vibration reduction system that reduces vibration along a first axis that is oriented parallel with gravity; and (ii) a second vibration reduction system that reduces vibration along a second axis that is orthogonal to the first axis…
Given a robot and multiple axes of vibration reduction, multiple degrees of freedom for the robot is obvious
81. (Previously Presented) The machine of claim 68, further comprising a sensor assembly that provides feedback, and a control system that actively controls the at least one actuator to inhibit vibration in the movable part from being transferred to the object.
18. (Currently Amended) The machine of claim 17 further comprising a vibration reduction assembly controller and at least one sensor, and wherein the sensor outputs a signal of vibration of the payload and the vibration reduction assembly controller controls the actuation system based upon the signal from the sensor
118. (New) The machine of claim 68, wherein the vibration reduction system includes a plurality of spaced apart actuators that connect the object to the movable part, and wherein at least one of the plurality of actuators is located to generate force in a different direction from the other actuator.
34. … (i) a first vibration reduction system that reduces vibration along a first axis that is oriented parallel with gravity; and (ii) a second vibration reduction system that reduces vibration along a second axis that is orthogonal to the first axis…
Given a plurality of actuator systems to apply forces in multiple axes, and it would be obvious to space these apart to avoid interference.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 69, 75-77, and 124 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 69, it is not clear whether the link includes, or the robot includes “a link actuator.”
Claim 75 recites “the at least one low-stiffness support.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. This claim depends from claim 74, which recites “a plurality of spaced apart low-stiffness supports.” However, “at least one low-stiffness support” is introduced in claim 72. It is recommended to change this claim to recite “the plurality of low-stiffness supports.”
Claim 76 recites “the at least one low-stiffness support.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. This claim depends from claim 74, which recites “a plurality of spaced apart low-stiffness supports.” However, “at least one low-stiffness support” is introduced in claim 72. It is recommended to change this claim to recite “the plurality of low-stiffness supports.”
Claim 77 recites “the at least one low-stiffness support.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. This claim depends from claim 74, which recites “a plurality of spaced apart low-stiffness supports.” However, “at least one low-stiffness support” is introduced in claim 72. It is recommended to change this claim to recite “the plurality of low-stiffness supports.”
Claim 124 recites “the sensor” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to –the sensor assembly--.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 68, 72-74, 78, 81, 82, and 121 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ueta (US 2003/0057619).
Regarding claim 68, Ueta discloses:
A machine for positioning an object (mass 220, ¶33), the machine comprising:
a movable part (¶7 “moving parts, the ground,” ¶32 “in a lithography system, the system may be a stage device, a projection exposure apparatus, or any system thereof… any system requiring vibration isolation.”); and
a vibration reduction system (active vibration isolation system (AVIS) 200, ¶2) having at least one actuator (electronic actuator 350, ¶36) located between the object and the movable part, wherein the at least one actuator reduces a magnitude of a vibration transferred from the movable part to the object so as to be less than another magnitude of vibration transferred from the movable part to the vibration reduction system (¶33 “electronic control system 330 isolates the mass from low frequency disturbances”).
Regarding claim 72,Ueta discloses:
at least one low-stiffness support (“compliance chamber 210 filled with a fluid to pneumatically support mass 220,” ¶34) that connects the object to the movable part.
Regarding claim 73,Ueta discloses:
the at least one low- stiffness support includes one of a spring, a bellows, and a pneumatic chamber (compliance chamber 210).
Regarding claim 74,Ueta discloses:
a plurality of spaced apart low-stiffness supports (“a plurality of (commonly at least three) AVIS 200,” ¶40, see 200a spaced from 200b in Fig 2, each AVIS having a compliance chamber) that connect the object to the movable part.
Regarding claim 78,Ueta discloses:
a control system (202) that actively controls a force produced by each low-stiffness support of the at least one low-stiffness support (¶45 “In the pneumatic control system 202, pressure sensor 212 measures the pressure level 204 of compliance chamber 210. Pneumatic feedback system 214 determines a measured pressure signal 226 based on the measured pressure level 204, and delivers the measured pressure signal 226 to summing junction 242.”).
Regarding claim 81,Ueta discloses:
a sensor assembly that provides feedback (position sensor 352, position feedback system 360, ¶36), and a control system that actively controls the at least one actuator to inhibit vibration in the movable part from being transferred to the object (¶36 “isolate vibration”).
Regarding claim 82,Ueta discloses:
the movable part is one of a component of a processing machine, or a component of a laser processing machine (base portion between the ground 82 and 200 and 350 in Fig 8), and the object is at least a portion of a laser device (mass 220, not labeled in Fig 8, but directly supported by 200 and 350, is part of exposure apparatus 21, ¶69, and includes a laser 84, ¶77).
Regarding claim 121, Ueta discloses:
the vibration reduction system includes the at least one actuator (350) that connect the object to the movable part, and at least one low-stiffness support (200) that connects the object to the movable part.
Claims 68, 71-77, 79-81, and 118-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lewis (US 2015/0176752).
Regarding claim 68, Lewis (US 2015/0176752) discloses:
A machine for positioning an object (platform with payload, ¶2), the machine comprising:
a movable part (¶1 “angular motions and translational and angular vibrations of a supporting structure,” ¶2); and
a vibration reduction system (platform stabilization system 100, ¶94 “active damping and stable motion of the platform 104 relative to the support frame 102”) having at least one actuator (two-axis magnetic voice coil actuators 144, ¶95) located between the object and the movable part, wherein the at least one actuator reduces a magnitude of a vibration transferred from the movable part to the object so as to be less than another magnitude of vibration transferred from the movable part to the vibration reduction system (¶65 “the term "isolator" means a device connecting two masses and whose structure acts to decouple the vibratory motions of each mass.” ¶94 “the drive system can also provide damping forces.”).
Regarding claim 71, Lewis discloses:
the movable part is a component of at least one of a mobile robotic vehicle, a mobile vehicle, an aerial drone, and a vehicle (¶2 “a vehicle like an airplane, helicopter or automobile”).
Regarding claim 72, Lewis discloses:
at least one low-stiffness support (springs 120, see Fig 4b, pivot element isolators 420c, see Fig 4e, diaphragm-based isolator 420D, see Fig 4f) that connects the object to the movable part (¶69, “extending directly between the support frame 102 and the platform 104,” ¶117 “flexural pivot element isolators 420C each extending directly between a support frame 402C and a platform 404C,” ¶120 “one of the housings 430D is coupled to the support frame 402D and the other housing 430D is coupled to the platform 404D”).
Regarding claim 73, Lewis discloses:
the at least one low- stiffness support includes one of a spring (120), a bellows, and a pneumatic chamber (430D, see Fig 4d, ¶122).
Regarding claim 74, Lewis discloses:
a plurality of spaced apart low-stiffness supports (springs 120, see Fig 4b, pivot element isolators 420c, see Fig 4e, diaphragm-based isolator 420D, see Fig 4f) that connect the object to the movable part (¶69, “extending directly between the support frame 102 and the platform 104,” ¶117 “flexural pivot element isolators 420C each extending directly between a support frame 402C and a platform 404C,” ¶120 “one of the housings 430D is coupled to the support frame 402D and the other housing 430D is coupled to the platform 404D”).
Regarding claim 75, Lewis discloses:
respective forces produced by each low-stiffness support of the at least one low-stiffness support is directed through a center of gravity of the object (at least a center of mass of the platform, ¶21).
Regarding claim 76, Lewis discloses:
the at least one low- stiffness support comprises a plurality of low-stiffness supports arranged parallel to three perpendicular axes (see Fig 4h).
Regarding claim 77, Lewis discloses:
the at least one low- stiffness support comprises a plurality of low-stiffness supports arranged in a tetrahedron configuration (see Fig 4b, 4e, 4f, ¶72).
Regarding claim 79, Lewis discloses:
at least one actuator (144/444/544) includes a plurality of spaced apart actuators (see Figs 5a, 5b, 5c) that connect the object to the movable part (¶95, ¶113 “six single-axis magnetic voice coil actuators 544B each comprising a first portion 544B2, in this case the magnetic structure portion, carried by the support frame and a second portion 544B1, in this case the coil portion, carried by the platform”).
Regarding claim 80, Lewis discloses:
at least one support and at least one actuator act in parallel (the actuators connect directly between the movable part and the object, ¶95 “each magnetic voice coil actuator 144 comprises a first portion 144A carried by the support frame 102 and a second portion 144B carried by the platform 104” and the springs are arranged “extending directly between the support frame 102 and the platform 104,” ¶69).
Regarding claim 81, Lewis discloses:
a sensor assembly (164, ¶100) that provides feedback, and a control system that actively controls the at least one actuator to inhibit vibration in the movable part from being transferred to the object (¶27 “a control system coupled to the active drive system for receiving sensor input and controlling the active drive system in response to the sensor input,” ¶101).
Regarding claim 118, Lewis discloses:
the vibration reduction system includes a plurality of spaced apart actuators (144/444/544, see Figs 5a, 5b, and 5c) that connect the object to the movable part (¶113 “six single-axis magnetic voice coil actuators 544B each comprising a first portion 544B2, in this case the magnetic structure portion, carried by the support frame and a second portion 544B1, in this case the coil portion, carried by the platform”), and wherein at least one of the plurality of actuators is located to generate force in a different direction from the other actuator (see Figs 5a, 5b, 5c, ¶98, ¶113, ¶114).
Regarding claim 119, Lewis discloses:
the plurality of actuators generate forces in at least three different directions (see Figs 5a, 5b, 5c, ¶98, ¶113, ¶114).
Regarding claim 120, Lewis discloses:
the plurality of spaced apart actuators comprises six actuators (see Fig 5b).
Regarding claim 121, Lewis discloses:
the vibration reduction system includes the at least one actuator (144/444/544) that connect the object to the movable part (¶98, ¶114, ¶113 “six single-axis magnetic voice coil actuators 544B each comprising a first portion 544B2, in this case the magnetic structure portion, carried by the support frame and a second portion 544B1, in this case the coil portion, carried by the platform”), and at least one low-stiffness support that connects the object to the movable part.
Regarding claim 122, Lewis discloses:
the at least one support and at least one actuator act in parallel (the actuators connect directly between the movable part and the object, ¶95 “each magnetic voice coil actuator 144 comprises a first portion 144A carried by the support frame 102 and a second portion 144B carried by the platform 104” and the springs are arranged “extending directly between the support frame 102 and the platform 104,” ¶69).
Claims 68, 81, and 124 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shibazaki (US 2018/0039190).
Regarding claim 68, Shibazaki discloses:
A machine for positioning an object (surface plate 12 with a wafer, ¶30), the machine comprising:
a movable part (base frame 16, movable, for example by “floor vibration,” ¶39); and
a vibration reduction system (vibration isolator 14, ¶32) having at least one actuator (¶38 “Vibration isolator 14 is an active type vibration isolation system (so-called AVIS (Active Vibration Isolation System)) that is equipped with an accelerometer, a displacement sensor (e.g. a capacitive sensor), an actuator (e.g. a voice coil motor), an air mount which functions as an air damper”) located between the object and the movable part, wherein the at least one actuator reduces a magnitude of a vibration transferred from the movable part to the object so as to be less than another magnitude of vibration transferred from the movable part to the vibration reduction system (¶38 is vague on in which direction the vibration is attenuated: “Consequently, vibration isolator 14 can avoid vibration from traveling between surface plate 14 and base frame.” Position of the plate 12 is of utmost importance, as would be understood from ¶86 “controller 60 controls the actuators of the three vibration isolators 14 real time so that the detection point of the first position measurement system 30 is in a desired positional relation with respect to the detection center of mark detection system MDS.” ¶39 also discloses that the goal of isolators 14 is to reduce transmission of vibration from the base 16 toward the plate 12: “fine vibration such as floor vibration is isolated by the air mount.”).
Regarding claim 81, Shibazaki discloses:
a sensor assembly (accelerometer, ¶38, second position measurement system 50, ¶101, MDS including Field Image Alignment, ¶58) that provides feedback, and a control system that actively controls the at least one actuator to inhibit vibration in the movable part from being transferred to the object (¶101 “controller 60, based on measurement information of the second position measurement system 50, controls the actuators of the three vibration isolators 14 real time so that the position in the XY plane of the detection point of the first position measurement system 30 coincides with the detection center of mark detection system MDS such as at a nm level”).
Regarding claim 124, Shibazaki discloses:
the sensor includes a camera (¶58 “imaging device (such as a CCD)” of the MDS).
Claims 68-70 and 123 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Phillips (US 2006/0176460).
Regarding claim 68, Phillips discloses:
A machine for positioning an object (collimator (COL) frame 204, ¶53), the machine comprising:
a movable part (rotary stage 260, see Fig 7, ¶106); and
a vibration reduction system (mounting 262) having at least one actuator (¶106 “six degrees of freedom (6 DOF) of actuation motion (x, y, z, θx, θy, θz) of the COL frame (for positional-adjustment and vibration-isolation purposes)“) located between the object (204) and the movable part (260), wherein the at least one actuator reduces a magnitude of a vibration transferred from the movable part to the object so as to be less than another magnitude of vibration transferred from the movable part to the vibration reduction system (¶106 “active vibration-isolation system (AVIS),” ¶21 “The actuators used for moving frames into position, as well as sensors used for detecting proper positioning of just-moved frames at their respective operational positions, serve to position and stabilize the frames and mirrors relative to a reference frame such as the projection-optics box (POB).”).
Regarding claim 69, Phillips discloses:
the movable part (260) is a link in a robot that includes a link actuator that moves the link (¶106 “The rotary stage 260 is rotatable relative to the base 230 to rotate the COL frame 204 relative to the base 230 as required to select a particular branch 204a-204d” requires an actuator).
Regarding claim 70, Phillips discloses:
the movable part (260) is a link in a multiple degree of freedom robotic arm (¶106 “the 6DOF mounting 262 imparts active vibration isolation and 6 DOF of positional adjustability”), and the at least one actuator is movable in multiple degrees of freedom to reduce the vibration (¶106 “six degrees of freedom… of the COL frame (for positional-adjustment and vibration-isolation purposes)”).
Regarding claim 123, Phillips discloses:
the movable part (260) is a link in a six degree of freedom robotic arm (¶106 “the 6DOF mounting 262 imparts active vibration isolation and 6 DOF of positional adjustability”), and the at least one actuator is movable in six degrees of freedom to reduce the vibration (¶106 “six degrees of freedom… of the COL frame (for positional-adjustment and vibration-isolation purposes)”).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Regarding claim 68, Sakka (US 20190264771) discloses:
A machine for positioning an object (car body 16), the machine comprising:
a movable part (front wheel 24); and
a vibration reduction system (shock absorber 26, ¶28) having at least one actuator (electro-magnetic actuator 100) located between the object and the movable part, wherein the at least one actuator reduces a magnitude of a vibration transferred from the movable part (wheel) to the object (car body) so as to be less than another magnitude of vibration transferred from the movable part (wheel) to the vibration reduction system (shock absorber, ¶3, ¶10 “Improvements in ride comfort are achieved over high-frequency motions (e.g., choppiness, shake, filtering,” ¶47 “acceleration of the body 16 for a given road input”).
Regarding claim 71, Sakka discloses:
the movable part is a component of at least one of a mobile robotic vehicle, a mobile vehicle (a car, see Fig 1), an aerial drone, and a vehicle.
Regarding claim 72, Sakka discloses:
at least one low-stiffness support (spring 110, pneumatic shock, a vehicle suspension typically has a natural frequency of 0.5 to 2 Hz) that connects the object to the movable part.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOPAZ L ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-5851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 a.m. - 4 p.m. 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on (571) 270-5569. 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.
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights