Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/173,566

ACTUATOR, STAGE DEVICE, EXPOSURE DEVICE, INSPECTION DEVICE

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Feb 23, 2023
Examiner
KIM, ROBERT H
Art Unit
2881
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Sumitomo Heavy Industries, Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
50%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 50% of resolved cases
50%
Career Allow Rate
25 granted / 50 resolved
-18.0% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
5 currently pending
Career history
55
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.5%
-37.5% vs TC avg
§103
47.8%
+7.8% vs TC avg
§102
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
§112
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 50 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claim(s) 1,4, 8, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshida et al. (JP2018062993a). In regards to claim 1,Yoshida teaches an actuator comprising: a slider driven within a movable range along a predetermined movement direction (fig 1, 14); a guide that extends in the movement direction to guide the slider and includes a surrounding structure surrounding an outer periphery of the slider and including an opening portion where at least a part thereof is open in a cross section perpendicular to the movement direction (fig 1, 12); a fluid supply portion that supplies a fluid between the slider and the guide (fig 2, airpad 12 and air supply system); a slider connecting member that penetrates the opening portion to connect the slider inside the surrounding structure and a driven body outside the surrounding structure (Inherent element, described as the table 20 being fixed to the X-axis slider); a guide connecting member that connects edges of the opening portion to each other between both end portions of the guide in the movement direction and is provided at a position where the slider connecting member does not come into contact with the guide connecting member when the slider moves within the movable range (the end pieces connecting the guides). As per claim 4; guide connecting member includes a first end guide connecting member and a second end guide connecting member that are provided outside along the movement direction from both ends of the movable range, as shown in claim1, it is connected at the end of the guide members. As per claim 8; Yoshida’s end portions of the guiding members (see above fig 1) wherein both end portions of the guide are blocked As per claim 12; a slider (fig 1, 14) driven within a movable range along a predetermined movement direction; a guide (fig 1, 12) that extends in the movement direction to guide the slider and includes a surrounding structure surrounding an outer periphery of the slider and including an opening portion where at least a part thereof is open in a cross section perpendicular to the movement direction; a gas supply portion (airpad 40)that supplies a gas between the slider and the guide; a gas discharge portion (high pressure air supply) that discharges the gas supplied by the gas supply portion from between the outer periphery of the slider and an inner periphery of the surrounding structure; a slider connecting member (inherent, Yoshida describes as the table 20 being fixed to the X-axis slider 14) that penetrates the opening portion to connect the slider inside the surrounding structure and a driven body outside the surrounding structure; a guide connecting member (fig 1, the end pieces connecting the guide 12) that connects edges of the opening portion to each other between both end portions of the guide in the movement direction and is provided at a position where the slider connecting member does not come into contact with the guide connecting member when the slider moves within the movable range; and a vacuum chamber (exhaust grooves 42,44,46, and used in vacuum environment) that accommodates the slider, the guide, the gas supply portion, the gas discharge portion, the slider connecting member, and the guide connecting member in an inside thereof in a vacuum state. PNG media_image1.png 1111 847 media_image1.png Greyscale 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. Claim(s) 5-7,9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Ebihara (20080236997A1). As per claims 5 and 6, Yoshida does not teach the guide connecting member includes a stress relaxation portion that relaxes stress by being deformed or a resistance applying portion. However, Ebihara teaches the flexures (fig 1,41a/b) which can be displaced or applied resistance for the guide member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the actuator of Yoshida with flexible guide members as taught by Ebihara wherein the flat plate-like flexures 41a/b can be easily displaced in the desired direction (paragraph 108 and 109). The stilled artisan would be motivated to include a deformable portion in order to gently guide and/or stop the moving slider to go beyond the maximum displacement allowance, and thus, damaging the actuator, as seen in Ebihara. As per claim 7, Yoshida’s actuator teaches the direction in which the slider connecting member connects the slider and the driven body and a direction in which the guide connecting member connects the edges of the opening portion to each other are substantially orthogonal to each other, fig 1. As per claims 9-11, although Yoshida does not explicitly teach the actuator device can be used on a table, exposure or inspection devices, it is noted that one of ordinary skill in the art can implement and use the actuator in various types of applications such as on a table, exposure or inspection devices. In other words, it would have been obvious to modify Yoshida’s actuator with Ebihara’s stage and exposure apparatus. In this instance, Ebihara teaches that you can set the actuator on a table, on an exposure or an inspection device. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the application would depend on the intended use of the actuator, as taught by Ebihara. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2,3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1 but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record fails to teach the slider connecting member includes a first slider connecting member and a second slider connecting member provided at a distance equal to or greater than a width of the movable range along the movement direction, and the guide connecting member is provided between the first slider connecting member and the second slider connecting member. Response to Amendment Applicant argues Yoshida fails to teach the amended guide connecting member that connects edges of the opening portion to each other between both end portions of the guide in the movement direction. This is not persuasive. The plate-like members of Yoshida provide a connection between the edges at both end portions of the guide in the exact same fashion as the claimed end portions. Since the structures are identical, the limitation is anticipated. See below: PNG media_image2.png 664 1032 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 394 536 media_image3.png Greyscale 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-2293. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5pm. 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, Allana Bidder can be reached at [ 571-272-5560 ]. 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. /ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 23, 2023
Application Filed
May 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Aug 26, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 26, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12573583
SYSTEM OF SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPE SAMPLE BOX AND METHOD OF OPENING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12566990
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IMPROVED VACUUM IN COMPACT PACKAGES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12548751
QUADRUPOLE MASS SPECTROMETER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12518955
IONIZATION DEVICE AND IONIZATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12469613
RADIOPROTECTIVE CONTAINER FOR RADIOMETRIC MEASURING DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 11, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
50%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+26.4%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 50 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month