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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 10/02/2023 and 03/07/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korenaga (US 2004/0095563) in view of Korenaga (US 2003/0007140- hereinafter ‘140).
Regarding claim 1, Korenaga teaches:
A positioning system (abstract), comprising:
a first core linear motor assembly (by 46,47, Figs 7-9) disposed adjacent to a first magnet assembly (33),
wherein the first core linear motor assembly (by 46,47) and the first magnet assembly (33) are physically separated by a first magnetic gap (Fig 7),
wherein a first magnetic attraction force is induced across the first magnetic gap (Fig 7), the first magnetic attraction force acting along a first axis (paras 100-102); and a
second core linear motor assembly (the other 46,47, Fig 7) disposed adjacent to a second magnet assembly (the other 33),
wherein the second core linear motor assembly and the second magnet assembly are physically separated by a second magnetic gap (Fig 7),
wherein a second magnetic attraction force is induced across the second magnetic gap (paras 100-102), the second magnetic attraction force acting along the first axis in a direction opposite the first magnetic attraction force (since both magnets 33 are axially opposite and both 46,47’s are opposite to each other),
wherein the first magnet assembly is mechanically coupled to the second magnet assembly (33) and the first core linear motor assembly is mechanically coupled to the second core linear motor assembly (Fig 7 shows them mechanically coupled).
Korenaga is silent regarding the use of an iron core.
’140 teaches the use of an iron core (paras 53-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Korenaga to use Iron cores, as taught by ‘140.
The motivation to do so is it would permit one to reduce heat (para 31 of ‘140) and be based on desired cost and weight.
Regarding claim 2/1, Korenaga teaches further comprising: a base frame (47); a first moving frame (by numeral 2) moveable with respect to the base frame along a second axis orthogonal to the first axis (paras 60-61), wherein the first and second magnet assemblies (33) are mechanically coupled to the first moving frame (by numeral 2) and the first and second iron core linear motor assemblies (46,47) are mechanically coupled to the base frame (47, para 97).
Regarding claim 5/2, Korenaga in view of ‘140 teach the invention as discussed above, except the first iron core linear motor assembly including a plurality of iron core linear motor units, the plurality of iron core linear motor units disposed adjacent to one another along a length of the first iron core linear motor assembly, each iron core linear motor unit including a plurality of electrically conductive coils, wherein a first of the plurality of electrically conductive coils of each of the plurality of iron core linear motor units are electrically coupled in series, and wherein a second of the plurality of electrically conductive coils (6) of each of the plurality of iron core linear motor units are electrically coupled in series.
However, Korenaga teaches in another embodiment the first iron core linear motor assembly (by 5,7, Fig 1A) including a plurality of iron core linear motor units 9Fig 1 A shows it can be divided into a plurality of units), the plurality of iron core linear motor units disposed adjacent to one another along a length of the first iron core linear motor assembly (Fig 1A), each iron core linear motor unit including a plurality of electrically conductive coils (6) , wherein a first of the plurality of electrically conductive coils of each of the plurality of iron core linear motor units are electrically coupled in series (paras 103-104), and wherein a second of the plurality of electrically conductive coils (6) of each of the plurality of iron core linear motor units are electrically coupled in series (paras 103-104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Korenaga in view of ‘140 to have the first iron core linear motor assembly including a plurality of iron core linear motor units, the plurality of iron core linear motor units disposed adjacent to one another along a length of the first iron core linear motor assembly, each iron core linear motor unit including a plurality of electrically conductive coils, wherein a first of the plurality of electrically conductive coils of each of the plurality of iron core linear motor units are electrically coupled in series, and wherein a second of the plurality of electrically conductive coils (6) of each of the plurality of iron core linear motor units are electrically coupled in series, as Korenaga teaches.
The motivation to do so is it would permit forces to be produced independently at the left-hand and right-hand arrays (para 104) and since it would provide a single phase (para 104 of Korenaga).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korenaga (US 2004/0095563) in view of Korenaga (US 2003/0007140- hereinafter ‘140), further in view of Hoppe (US 20040164622).
Regarding claim 6/1, Korenaga in view of ‘140 teach the invention as discussed above, except further comprising: a first cooling channel within a housing of the first iron core linear motor assembly; and a second cooling channel within a housing of the second iron core linear motor assembly.
Hoppe teaches an apparatus further comprising: a first cooling channel (9) within a housing (1) of the first iron core linear motor assembly (Fig 1).
Hoppe does not teach a second cooling channel within a housing of the second iron core linear motor assembly.
However, a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of scaling the cooling parts and apply them to the secondary linear motor system as taught by Korenaga in view of ‘140, since it would permit one to cool the device (paras 3-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Korenaga in view of ‘140 to have a first cooling channel within a housing of the first iron core linear motor assembly, as taught by Hoppe and to have a second cooling channel within a housing of the second iron core linear motor assembly.
The motivation to do so would be based on desired level of cooling (paras 3-9 of Hoppe) and cost.
Regarding claim 7/6, Korenaga in view of ‘140, further in view of Hoppe teach the invention as discussed above
Korenaga in view of ‘140 do not teach wherein a cooling fluid or a cooling gas pass through the first and second cooling channels.
Hoppe teaches wherein a cooling fluid or a cooling gas pass through the first and second cooling channels (para 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Korenaga in view of ‘140, further in view of Hoppe wherein a cooling fluid or a cooling gas pass through the first and second cooling channels, as Hoppe teaches.
The motivation to do so is it would allow one to cool the device as wanted (paras 3-9 of Hoppe).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korenaga (US 2004/0095563) in view of Korenaga (US 2003/0007140- hereinafter ‘140), further in view of Ohishi (US 20080001482).
Regarding claim 8/1, Korenaga in view of ‘140 teach the invention as discussed above, except wherein the first moving frame is constrained to move with respect to the base frame along the second axis by a mechanical bearing, an air bearing, or a magnetic bearing.
Ohishi teaches an apparatus wherein the first moving frame is constrained to move with respect to the base frame along the second axis by a mechanical bearing, an air bearing (14, para 29), or a magnetic bearing
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Korenaga in view of ‘140, wherein the first moving frame is constrained to move with respect to the base frame along the second axis by a mechanical bearing, an air bearing, or a magnetic bearing, as Ohishi teaches.
The motivation to do so is it would allow one to reduce friction and depend on desired accuracy (para 29 of Ohishi).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In claim 9, Korenaga in view of ‘140 discloses the invention as discussed above.
However, neither Korenaga in view of ‘140 nor any additionally cited art of record teaches or fairly suggests, alone or in combination, inter alia, “an illumination source configured to generate an amount of illumination light directed to one or more structures fabricated on a semiconductor wafer; a detector configured to detect an amount of light from the one or more structures in response to the amount of illumination light, a computing system configured to determine a value of at least one parameter of interest characterizing the one or more structures under measurement based on the amount of detected light.…”.
Claims 10-16 are allowable based on their virtue of depending on claim 9.
In claim 17, Korenaga in view of ‘140 discloses the invention as discussed above.
However, neither Korenaga in view of ‘140 nor any additionally cited art of record teaches or fairly suggests, alone or in combination, inter alia, “a fourth iron core linear motor assembly mechanically coupled to the second moving frame, the third iron core linear motor assembly disposed adjacent to the third magnet assembly, wherein the third iron core linear motor assembly and the third magnet assembly are physically separated by a third magnetic gap, wherein a third magnetic attraction force is induced across the third magnetic gap, the third magnetic attraction force acting along a fourth axis, the fourth iron core linear motor assembly disposed adjacent to the fourth magnet assembly, wherein the fourth iron core linear motor assembly and the fourth magnet assembly are physically separated by a fourth magnetic gap, wherein a fourth magnetic attraction force is induced across the fourth magnetic gap, the fourth magnetic attraction force acting along the fourth axis in a direction opposite the third magnetic attraction force.”.
Claims 18-20 are allowable based on their virtue of depending on claim 17.
Claims 3-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In claim 3/2 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…further comprising: a second moving frame moveable with respect to the first moving frame along a third axis orthogonal to the second axis; a third iron core linear motor assembly disposed adjacent to a third magnet assembly, wherein the third iron core linear motor assembly and the third magnet assembly are physically separated by a third magnetic gap, wherein a third magnetic attraction force is induced across the third magnetic gap, the third magnetic attraction force acting along a fourth axis orthogonal to the third axis; and a fourth iron core linear motor assembly disposed adjacent to a fourth magnet assembly, wherein the fourth iron core linear motor assembly and the fourth magnet assembly are physically separated by a fourth magnetic gap, wherein a fourth magnetic attraction force is induced across the fourth magnetic gap, the fourth magnetic attraction force acting along the fourth axis in a direction opposite the third magnetic attraction force, wherein the third magnet assembly is mechanically coupled to the fourth magnet assembly and the third iron core linear motor assembly is mechanically coupled to the third linear motor assembly.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Claim 4/3 is also allowable for depending on claim 3.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAISHADH N DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3038. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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.
NAISHADH N. DESAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2834
/NAISHADH N DESAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834