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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/18/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 7 is/are cancelled; claim(s) 14-15 was/were withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11 is/are amended.
Applicant’s arguments regarding amendments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments based on the amendments do not apply to the current rejection. The amendments in the claims are rejected by previously relied on references below.
Applicant's remaining arguments for claim 1 filed 09/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Hashizume nor Yamamoto disclose a collision-prevention roller, as amended.
Examiner disagrees, and notes that Hashizume teaches another embodiment where the guide rail can be a guide roller instead (para. [0164]).
Applicant’s amendments with subsequent arguments in support of the amendments, see pp. 6-7, filed 09/18/2025, with respect to claims 2-5, 11, 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejections of 06/30/2025 have been withdrawn.
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 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 unit (control system including integration controller, coil controller, and sensor controller, para. [0057]) in claims 1-13.
Holding mechanism (mechanical hook, electrostatic chuck or the like, para. [0045]) in claims 8-9.
Film deposition source (vapor deposition source, para. [0047]) in claims 12-13.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210245974 to Hashizume in view of US 20210188569 to Yamamoto.
Claim 1: Hashizume discloses a transport system comprising: a mover (301 [mover], Fig. 1-2); a stator (201 [stator]); a plurality of magnets (303 [permanent magnets]) provided in one of the mover (301) or the stator and arranged along a first direction (Fig. 2A); a plurality of coils (202 [coils]) provided in one of the mover or the stator (201) that does not have the plurality of magnets (303) and arranged along the first direction so that the plurality of coils face to the plurality of magnets (303, para. [0054]); and
a control unit (3 [control unit], Fig. 3) that moves the mover (301) in the first direction while floating the mover (301) at a height position where magnetic attraction force acting between the plurality of magnets and the plurality of coils balances a gravitational force acting in a second direction crossing the first direction (para. [0050], [0065]).
However Hashizume does not explicitly disclose floating higher than an equilibrium position.
Yet Hashizume teaches the structure components and has six degrees of freedom of movement (para. [0071-0072]) and sensors to detect the various degrees of movement (para. [0071]) which render the apparatus capable of performing as necessary, for the purpose of controlling the conveyance of the mover while controlling the orientation of the mover (para. [0072]).
The courts have held that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 II.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the various degrees of movement as taught by Hashizume with motivation to control the conveyance of the mover while controlling the orientation of the mover.
The apparatus of Hashizume does not disclose wherein the mover has a stopper, wherein the stator has a collision-prevention roller that restricts a movable range of the mover in the second direction by contacting the stopper, and wherein, when the stopper and the collision-prevention roller contact each other, the coil and the magnet are separated from each other.
Yamamoto discloses wherein the mover (105 [movable element adapters], Fig. 1) has a stopper (105d [protruding portion]), wherein the stator (210 [stator]) has a collision-prevention member (124 [stopper]) that restricts a movable range of the mover in the second direction by contacting the stopper (105d), and wherein, when the stopper (105d) and the collision-prevention roller (124) contact each other (para. [0054]), the coil (202 [coils]) and the magnet (103 [magnets]) are considered capable to be separated from each other (Fig. 1) for the purpose of restricting a movable range of the levitation state of the moveable element with this configuration (para. [0054]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the stopper and collision-prevention roller member, with configuration as taught by Yamamoto with motivation to restrict a movable range of the levitation state of the moveable element with this configuration.
The apparatus of Hashizume in view of Yamamoto does not disclose the collision-prevention member is a roller.
Yet Hashizume teaches that the mover can be restricted by a guide roller (204, Fig. 14A-14C) instead of a guide rail (para. [0164]), for the purpose of restricting the mover from moving in the Y-direction and the Z-direction (para. [0164]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the substitution of the kind of restrictor as a rail or guard member to a roller as taught by Hashizume with motivation to restrict the mover from moving in the Y-direction and the Z-direction.
Claim 6: The apparatus of Hashizume in view of Yamamoto discloses wherein the control unit (3, Fig. 3, Hashizume) is considered capable to change the height position of the one of the first member and the second member, on which the gravitational force acts, according to a position in the first direction (para. [0050]).
Claim 7: (Cancelled).
Claim 8: The apparatus of Hashizume in view of Yamamoto discloses wherein the first member (301, Fig. 1-2, Hashizume) includes: a bottom face (bottom of 301) positioned on an opposite side of the top face (top of 301); and a holding mechanism (“holding mechanism,” para. [0052]) that is provided and configured to hold a workpiece (102 [work]).
Regarding the holding mechanism being held on the bottom face, placement of holding mechanism can be located above or below the first member as an obvious matter of design choice; the courts have held that the mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04 VI (C).
Claim 9: The apparatus of Hashizume in view of Yamamoto discloses wherein the workpiece (102, Fig. 2, Hashizume) includes a substrate (102, para. [0034]).
Claim 10: The apparatus of Hashizume in view of Yamamoto discloses wherein the coil (202, Fig. 2, Hashizume) has a core and a winding wound around the core (para. [0056]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashizume in view of Yamamoto as applied to claims 1, 6, 8-10 above, and further in view of KR 101386685 to Goo.
Claim 12: The apparatus of Hashizume in view of Yamamoto discloses film forming apparatus comprising: the transport system (1 [conveyance apparatus], Fig. 1-2, Hashizume) according to claim 1 that transports a workpiece (102 [work]);
However Hashizume does not disclose and a film deposition source configured to form a film on the workpiece and provided below the transport system.
Goo teaches and a film deposition source (500 [deposition source], Fig. 6) configured to form a film on the workpiece (G [substrate]) and provided below the transport system (20 [carrier], para. [0039]) for the purpose of depositing a thin film using a bottom-up deposition process in which the substrate (G) is positioned at the top and the deposition source (500) is positioned at the bottom.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the deposition source and configuration as taught by Goo with motivation to deposit a thin film using a bottom-up deposition process in which the substrate is positioned at the top and the deposition source is positioned at the bottom.
Claims 14-15: (Withdrawn).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record discloses a transport system comprising: a mover; a stator; a plurality of magnets provided in one of the mover or the stator and arranged along a first direction; a plurality of coils provided in one of the mover or the stator that does not have the plurality of magnets and arranged along the first direction so that the plurality of coils face the plurality of magnets; and a control unit that determines a height position of the mover based on a cogging torque, and moves the mover in the first direction while floating the mover, wherein the control unit determines the height position of the mover based on, as the cogging torque.
However the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a cogging torque acting in a second direction parallel to the gravitational force, a cogging torque acting in a rotational direction with the first direction as an axis, and a cogging torque acting in a rotational direction with a third direction intersecting the first direction and the second direction as an axis, as set forth in the present claims. The apparatus of Hashizume in view Yamamoto fails to disclose the limitations above. Further, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part, along with the requisite motivation for combination, to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious. This subject matter is therefore rendered allowable.
Claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten into the independent claim including all of the limitations of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 12139352, US 11851274, US 12015319, discloses a transport system includes: a mover that includes at least one magnetic body; a stator that includes a plurality of coils arranged in a first direction, and a control unit that controls the current applied to the plurality of coils to apply the force to the at least one magnetic body in the first direction, a second direction crossing the first direction, (abstract). US 5156093 discloses a transport system comprising: a first member (51 [supporting plate], Fig. 1-3) including a top face (top of 51) and a plurality of magnets (50 [magnetic units]) arranged on the top face along a first direction (Fig. 2-3); a second member (40 [stator]).
US 11374479, US 11777388 disclose a transport system includes: a mover having a first magnet group arranged in parallel to a first direction and a second magnet group arranged in parallel to a second direction crossing the first direction (abstract, Fig. 2).
US 12301144 discloses a similar invention by same assignee (Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718