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 .
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 17 July 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7: “the encoder” in lines 16-17 should be “the encoder unit” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 11: “the calibration parameters” in lines 1-2 should be “the plurality of grid map calibration parameters” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language. Additionally, “the encoder” in line 4 should be “the encoder unit” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 12: “the encoder” in line 4 should be “the encoder unit” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language. Additionally, “the entry” in line 4 should be “the table entry” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
“a mapping unit” in claim 1: pages 6-7, “the mapping unit 8 may have a signal processing module to provide the estimated coordinates from the sense signals of the optical sensors 31.” This is not sufficient structure as an additional generic placeholder has been used to define the mapping unit without any structure.
“a feedback control unit” in claim 1: no sufficient structure is provided in the specification.
“a calibration head positioning unit” in claim 3: no sufficient structure is provided in the specification.
“a calibration control unit” in claim 3: no sufficient structure is provided in the specification.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite 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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, “a desired position” in lines 8-9 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in line 6. Is this limitation referring to the same desired position mentioned previously or a different desired position? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same desired location mentioned previously. “the setpoint coordinates” in line 9 lack proper antecedent basis.
Claims 2-4, 6, and 9-20 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, “an encoder unit with one or more sensors” in line 6 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously. Is this limitations referring to the same encoder unit mentioned previously or a different encoder unit? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to a different encoder unit than the one mentioned previously. “the further encoder unit” in line 13 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims 9-14 and 20 are rejected for their dependency on claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, “the setpoint coordinates” in line 8 and “the estimated coordinate data” in lines 9-10 both lack proper antecedent basis.
Claim 8 is rejected for its dependency on claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, “an element” in line 1, “a grid plate encoder based positioning system” in lines 1-2, “setpoint coordinates” in line 3, “a desired position” in line 3, “compensated coordinate data” in line 4, and “estimated position data” in line 4 are all unclear as each of these limitations has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 6 is dependent. Are these limitation referring to the same elements mentioned previously or different elements? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting these limitations to be referring to the same elements mentioned previously.
Regarding claim 7, “a grid encoder” in line 12 is unclear as it appears to be possibly referring to the encoder unit mentioned previously. Namely, the claim states “the one or more optical sensors of a grid encoder,” using proper antecedent basis to refer back to the optical sensors of the encoder unit. Is this limitation referring to a different encoder element or the same encoder element mentioned previously? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same encoder element (i.e. encoder unit” mentioned previously.
Regarding claim 11, “a desired position” in line 3 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 11 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to a different desired position or the same desired position mentioned previously? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same desired position mentioned previously. Additionally, “the data” in line 3 is unclear. To which data is this limitation referring? There is “compensated coordinate data,” “estimated position data,” and “measurement data.” In light of the specification as well as context from the claim itself, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to estimated position data. Lastly, “the corresponding position” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims 12-13 are rejected for their dependency on claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, “the position” in line 3 and line 4 both lack proper antecedent basis.
Claim 13 is rejected for its dependency on claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, “the desired coordinate data” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 17, “the encoder head assembly” in lines 1-2 lacks proper antecedent basis. Additionally, “a first 1D-encoder read head” in line 2, and “a second and a third encoder read head” in lines 2-3 are unclear as these limitation have been mentioned previously in claim 16, on which claim 17 is dependent. Are these limitations referring to the same read heads mentioned previously or different read heads? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting these limitations to be referring to the same read heads mentioned previously.
Claim limitations “a mapping unit,” “a feedback control unit,” “a calibration head positioning unit,” and “a calibration control unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to provide any structure that performs mapping, feedback control, calibration head positioning, or calibration control. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitations will no longer be interpreted as limitations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5-6, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auer et al. (WO 2016030090 A1) in view of Aoki (USPGPub 20200004166 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Auer teaches a grid plate encoder based positioning system for positioning of an element (OB) (abstract, an encoder system calibration method, wherein the encoder system is configured to measure a position of an object relative to a reference in a first direction), the positioning system comprising: a grid plate (G1-G4) with a grid plate surface (see figure 3, gratings G1-G4 (i.e. grid plate)); an encoder unit (EH1-EH4) for sensing a grid plate surface pattern of the grid plate surface (see figure 3, encoder heads EH1-EH4 (i.e. encoder unit); and page 12, lines 12-15, The object OB is provided with four encoder heads, namely a first encoder head EH1, a second encoder head EH2, a third encoder head EH3 and a fourth encoder head EH4, each encoder head cooperating with a respective grating G1-G4); an input (CS) to receive coordinates specifying a desired position of the element (OB) (page 10, lines 30-31 to page 11, line 1, a control system CS configured to drive the actuator system AS in dependency of an output OP of the measurement system MS and a set point SP representing a desired position of the object OB; and page 11, lines 22-24, The set point SP may be provided to the control system CS by a set point generator SPG. Both the set point generator and the control system CS may be part of a control unit LACU as also depicted in Fig. 1); a mapping unit (CS) to compute compensated coordinate data corresponding to estimated position data expected from the encoder unit (EH1-EH4) when the element (OB) is positioned at a desired position specified by the setpoint coordinates (see figure 1, control system CS; and page 3, lines 26-29, a) positioning the object in a predetermined position relative to the reference in the first direction; b) creating a captured first signal by capturing the first signal when the object is in said predetermined position; c) applying the calibration data to the captured first signal to create a calibrated first signal); a feedback control unit (CS) providing the compensated coordinate data as a setpoint to a positioning unit, with feedback control based on the estimated position data obtained from the encoder unit (EH1-EH4) (page 10, lines 30-31 to page 11, line 1, a control system CS configured to drive the actuator system AS in dependency of an output OP of the measurement system MS and a set point SP representing a desired position of the object OB). However, Auer fails to explicitly teach wherein the encoder unit comprises one or more optical sensors.
However, Aoki teaches wherein the encoder unit comprises one or more optical sensors (¶122, Light from upward scale 72 is supplied to a detector not shown, and the output of the detector is supplied to main controller 100 (refer to FIG. 6). Main controller 100 obtains relative movement amount of each of the heads 74x and 74y with respect to scale 72, based on the output of the detector. Note that in the description, “head” simply means a section that emits a measurement beam onto a diffraction grating as well as a section where light from the diffraction grating is incident on).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Auer to incorporate the teachings of Aoki to provide at least one detector in each encoder head in order to allow the device to function properly by detecting light indicating position.
Regarding claim 5, Auer teaches a method of positioning an element (OB) (abstract, an encoder system calibration method, wherein the encoder system is configured to measure a position of an object relative to a reference in a first direction), comprising: providing a grid plate (G1-G4) with a grid plate surface (see figure 3, gratings G1-G4 (i.e. grid plate)); providing an encoder unit (EH1-EH4) for sensing a grid plate surface pattern of the grid plate surface (see figure 3, encoder heads EH1-EH4 (i.e. encoder unit); and page 12, lines 12-15, The object OB is provided with four encoder heads, namely a first encoder head EH1, a second encoder head EH2, a third encoder head EH3 and a fourth encoder head EH4, each encoder head cooperating with a respective grating G1-G4); receive coordinates specifying a desired position of the element (OB) (page 10, lines 30-31 to page 11, line 1, a control system CS configured to drive the actuator system AS in dependency of an output OP of the measurement system MS and a set point SP representing a desired position of the object OB; and page 11, lines 22-24, The set point SP may be provided to the control system CS by a set point generator SPG. Both the set point generator and the control system CS may be part of a control unit LACU as also depicted in Fig. 1); computing compensated coordinate data corresponding to estimated position data expected from the encoder unit (EH1-EH4) when the element (OB) is positioned at the desired position specified by the setpoint coordinates (page 3, lines 26-29, a) positioning the object in a predetermined position relative to the reference in the first direction; b) creating a captured first signal by capturing the first signal when the object is in said predetermined position; c) applying the calibration data to the captured first signal to create a calibrated first signal); using feedback control to position the element (OB) at a position where the estimated coordinate data of the encoder unit (EH1-EH4) correspond to the computed compensated coordinate data (page 10, lines 30-31 to page 11, line 1, a control system CS configured to drive the actuator system AS in dependency of an output OP of the measurement system MS and a set point SP representing a desired position of the object OB). However, Auer fails to explicitly teach wherein the encoder unit comprises one or more optical sensors.
However, Aoki teaches wherein the encoder unit comprises one or more optical sensors (¶122, Light from upward scale 72 is supplied to a detector not shown, and the output of the detector is supplied to main controller 100 (refer to FIG. 6). Main controller 100 obtains relative movement amount of each of the heads 74x and 74y with respect to scale 72, based on the output of the detector. Note that in the description, “head” simply means a section that emits a measurement beam onto a diffraction grating as well as a section where light from the diffraction grating is incident on).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Auer to incorporate the teachings of Aoki to provide at least one detector in each encoder head in order to allow the device to function properly by detecting light indicating position.
Regarding claim 6, Auer as modified by Aoki teaches a method of positioning an element with a grid plate encoder based positioning system as specified in claim 1, the method comprising: providing setpoint coordinates indicative of a desired position of the element (Auer OB | Aoki P) (Auer, page 10, lines 30-31 to page 11, line 1, a control system CS configured to drive the actuator system AS in dependency of an output OP of the measurement system MS and a set point SP representing a desired position of the object OB; and page 11, lines 22-24, The set point SP may be provided to the control system CS by a set point generator SPG. Both the set point generator and the control system CS may be part of a control unit LACU as also depicted in Fig. 1); computing compensated coordinate data indicative for estimated position data expected from the encoder unit (Auer EH1-EH4 | Aoki 78/88) when the element (Auer OB | Aoki P) is positioned at the desired position (Auer, page 3, lines 26-29, a) positioning the object in a predetermined position relative to the reference in the first direction; b) creating a captured first signal by capturing the first signal when the object is in said predetermined position; c) applying the calibration data to the captured first signal to create a calibrated first signal); providing the compensated coordinate data as a setpoint to a positioning unit, with feedback control based on the estimated position data obtained from the encoder unit (Auer EH1-EH4 | Aoki 78/88) (Auer, page 10, lines 30-31 to page 11, line 1, a control system CS configured to drive the actuator system AS in dependency of an output OP of the measurement system MS and a set point SP representing a desired position of the object OB).
Regarding claim 15, Auer as modified by Aoki teaches the grid plate encoder based positioning system according to claim 1, wherein the encoder unit (Auer EH1-EH4 | Aoki 78/88) further comprises a plurality of encoder read heads (Auer EH1-EH4 | Aoki 74x/74y/80x/80y) (Auer, see figure 3, plurality of encoder heads EH1-EH4).
Regarding claim 16, Auer as modified by Aoki teaches the grid plate encoder based positioning system according to claim 15, wherein the plurality of encoder read heads (Auer EH1-EH4 | Aoki 74x/74y/80x/80y) comprises a first, a second and a third 1D encoder read head (Auer, see figure 3, plurality of encoder heads EH1-EH4; and page 13, lines 11-12, the above encoder heads are described as only being able to measure the position in a single direction, i.e. the above encoder heads are described as 1D encoder heads).
Regarding claim 19, Auer as modified by Aoki teaches a production system comprising the grid plate encoder based positioning system according to claim 1, further comprising a production system element to be positioned with the positioning system (Auer, page 1, lines 14-16, The present invention relates to a calibration method for an encoder system. The present invention further relates to an object positioning system, a lithographic apparatus and a method for manufacturing a device).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auer et al. (WO 2016030090 A1) in view of Aoki (USPGPub 20200004166 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shibazaki (USPGPub 20100296071 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Auer as modified by Aoki teaches the mapping unit (Auer CS) for computing the compensated coordinate data (Auer, page 3, lines 26-29, a) positioning the object in a predetermined position relative to the reference in the first direction; b) creating a captured first signal by capturing the first signal when the object is in said predetermined position; c) applying the calibration data to the captured first signal to create a calibrated first signal). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach the use of a compensation table to compute the compensated coordinate data.
However, Shibazaki teaches the use of a compensation table to compute the compensated coordinate data (¶104, the .N1 correction information can be stored in memory, in a table data format consisting of discrete measurement errors of an encoder; and see ¶108 for further details).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Auer and Aoki to incorporate the teachings of Shibazaki to provide a table for the mapping unit in order to organize and present data in a way that is easy for processing units to manipulate and analyze. Additionally, having a table provides for quick data retrieval and filtering, as well as allowing faster data processing in general.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auer et al. (WO 2016030090 A1) in view of Aoki (USPGPub 20200004166 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sadeghian et al. (USPGPub 20150185248 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Auer as modified by Aoki teaches the encoder unit (Auer EH1-EH4 | Aoki 78/88) (Auer, page 12, lines 12-15, The object OB is provided with four encoder heads, namely a first encoder head EH1, a second encoder head EH2, a third encoder head EH3 and a fourth encoder head EH4, each encoder head cooperating with a respective grating G1-G4). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach an atomic force microscope (AFM) system comprising an AFM head with a probe having a tip to be positioned with the positioning system, wherein the AFM head includes the encoder unit.
However, Sadeghian teaches an atomic force microscope (AFM) system comprising an AFM head with a probe having a tip to be positioned with the positioning system, wherein the AFM head includes the encoder unit (¶8, The scanning probe microscopy device of the present invention may for example be an atomic force microscopy (AFM) device; and ¶1, The present invention is directed to an scanning probe microscopy device for mapping nanostructures on a sample surface of a sample, comprising a plurality probes for scanning the sample surface, and one or more motion actuators for enabling motion of the probes relative to the sample, wherein each of said plurality of probes comprises a probing tip mounted on a cantilever arranged for bringing the probing tip in contact with the sampling surface for enabling the scanning, the device further comprising a plurality of Z-position detectors for determining a position of each probing tip along a Z-direction when the probing tip is in contact with the sample surface, wherein the Z-direction is a direction transverse to the sample surface, for enabling mapping of the nanostructures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Auer and Aoki to incorporate the teachings of Sadeghian to have the positioning system as part of an atomic force microscope because AFM microscopy allows visualization of surfaces at very high accuracy, enabling visualization of surface elements at sub-nanometer resolution (¶2).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auer et al. (WO 2016030090 A1) in view of Aoki (USPGPub 20200004166 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Ichinose et al. (USPGPub 20190287837 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Auer as modified by Aoki teaches the method of positioning an element (Auer OB | Aoki P) (Auer, abstract, an encoder system calibration method, wherein the encoder system is configured to measure a position of an object relative to a reference in a first direction). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions to enable a programmable processor to perform one or more steps of the method of claim 5.
However, Ichinose teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions to enable a programmable processor to perform one or more steps of the method of claim 5 (¶138, Analysis device 3000 performs various analyses and operations, in accordance with instructions from host computer 2000. In one example, analysis device 3000, for example, performs an operation according to a predetermined program).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Auer and Aoki to incorporate the teachings of Ichinose to provide a computer medium to provide instructions to the device in order to provide a functioning device that is able to perform position determination.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auer et al. (WO 2016030090 A1) in view of Aoki (USPGPub 20200004166 A1) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (USPGPub 20140204392 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Auer as modified by Aoki teaches the grid plate encoder based positioning system according to claim 16, wherein the encoder head assembly includes a first 1D-encoder read head for a first planar direction and a second encoder read head for the Y-direction (Auer, page 13, lines 28-29, To determine the position of the object in three degrees of freedom in the plane of the drawing, namely X-direction, Y-direction and Rz direction, a minimum of three encoder heads is required). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the encoder head assembly includes two encoder read heads for the Y-direction.
However, Lee teaches wherein the encoder head assembly includes two encoder read heads for the Y-direction (see figure 1, 1D encoder head 3 and 2D encoder heads 1 and 2; ¶72, The 1D scale 4 and the 1D scale reading head 3 may measure the coordinate of the y-axis direction; and ¶86, Once the y-axis coordinate has been obtained by the 1D scale reading head 3, and both x-axis and y-axis coordinates have been obtained by the 2D encoder reading head 2, the y-axis coordinate obtained by the 2D encoder reading head 2 may be exchanged for the y-axis coordinate of the 1D scale reading head 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Auer and Aoki to incorporate the teachings of Lee to provide two encoder heads for the y-axis because a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auer et al. (WO 2016030090 A1) in view of Aoki (USPGPub 20200004166 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Balan (USPGPub 20150160564 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Auer as modified by Aoki teaches the grid plate encoder based positioning system according to claim 15, comprising a grid plate (Auer G1-G4 | Aoki 78/84) (Auer, see figure 3, gratings G1-G4). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the grid plate is provided with a two-dimensional periodic pattern comprising reflecting grid lines on a non-reflective background or reversely.
However, Balan teaches wherein the grid plate (504) is provided with a two-dimensional periodic pattern comprising reflecting grid lines (506) on a non-reflective background (508) or reversely (¶53, The encoder scale 504 may be formed from a plurality of reflective lines (e.g., 506a.about.508e) over a nonreflective (e.g., transparent/absorptive) material (e.g., 508)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Auer and Aoki to incorporate the teachings of Balan to provide a reflective type grid plate because they provide a compact design due to its single PCB assembly as well as proving high accuracy and resolution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 9-14, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the grid plate encoder based positioning system according to claim 1 as claimed, further comprising: a wafer stage for carrying a wafer having optically detectable marks at a wafer surface facing the grid plate surface; more specifically in combination with a calibration head movable between the wafer stage and the grid plate, the calibration head including an encoder unit with one or more optical sensors for sensing the grid plate surface pattern of the grid plate surface and a mark sensor for sensing an optically detectable mark at a reference wafer carried by the wafer stage; a calibration head positioning unit to position the calibration head at a plurality of mutually different lateral positions and a calibration control unit to control the calibration head positioning unit and to compute compensation data for use by the mapping unit from measurement data obtained from the further encoder unit and from the mark sensor at the plurality of mutually different lateral positions.
Claims 9-14 and 20 would be allowable for their dependency on claim 3.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach a method of computing compensation parameters as claimed for use with a respective grid plate in a grid plate encoder based positioning system, the grid plate having a grid plate surface with a surface pattern, the grid plate encoder based positioning system comprising an encoder unit with one or more optical sensors for optically sensing the surface pattern at the grid plate surface and a signal processor for computing estimated position data from sense signals obtained from said one or more optical sensors; the method comprising: providing a reference wafer having optically detectable marks at a wafer surface facing the grid plate surface; more specifically in combination with providing a calibration head between the grid plate and the reference wafer, the calibration head having a mark sensor facing said wafer surface and having at least the one or more optical sensors of a grid encoder facing the grid plate surface; positioning the calibration head at a plurality of laterally different positions between the grid plate and the reference wafer to obtain a respective position indication from the mark sensor indicative for its sensed position with respect to the optically detectable marks, and to obtain a respective encoder position indication from the encoder indicative for its position with respect to the grid plate surface; and computing compensation parameters based on the obtained position indications.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at (571)272-2328. 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878