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 statement (IDS) submitted on 12/21/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 12/21/2023 are being considered by the examiner.
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: “a drive unit that drives the movable part …” in claims 1 and 3, and “a positioning device for positioning a table” in claim 7.
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 § 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.
Claim 7-9 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.
Claim limitation “a positioning device for positioning a table as the driven body whose tilt is controlled by the control device” in claim 7 invokes 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. Specification is silent regarding what components make the positioning device. On the other hand, specification states fig. 1 shows a stage device 100 as a positioning device or a driving device to which an actuator and a tilt control device can be applied (¶ 0019). Specification also states the processing apparatus to which the stage device 100 can be applied may be any apparatus that positions any workpiece to be processed by using the stage device 100 or the positioning device (¶ 0022). Therefore, it appears the stage device 100 may work as the positioning device, but the positioning device is not necessarily the stage device 100. Then, it is unclear how the positioning device, not the stage device 100, positions a table. Furthermore, it is not clear how the table such as the movable plate/driven body 42 shown in fig. 2 can be positioned by using the positioning device. For examination purpose the examiner has interpreted any moving device which can move a table in x and y directions satisfies the claim limitations.
Claims 8 and 9 inherit the above deficiency by nature of their dependency.
Therefore, the claims are 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 limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, lines 2-3, the phrase “a positioning device for positioning a table as the driven body whose tilt is controlled by the tilt control device” lacks written description requirement. As discussed in 112(b) rejection above, the stage device 100 may not be the positioning device, specification of the instant application does not describe what the positioning device is and how the tilt of the table is controlled by the tilt control device. Therefore, the phrase lacks the written description.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 100273437B1), in view of Yoshida (JP 2018197592A).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida discloses an actuator (linear actuator 100) (see annotated Kim fig. 1 below) comprising:
a fixed part (an upper frame 111, an intermediate frame 112, and a lower frame 113 form a recited fixed part);
a movable part (a mover 122);
a drive unit (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The drive unit comprises a coil 54 and a permanent magnet 65 as described in ¶ 0033) that drives the movable part relative to the fixed part along a driving direction (Kim English translation, p. 4:1-9, a drive motor 120 comprises a plurality of coils 121b and the mover 122 comprises a magnet 112b to face the coil; p. 5:25-26, when power is applied to the drive motor 120, the mover 122 [corresponds to the recited movable part] reciprocates linearly); and
a guide portion that extends in the driving direction in the fixed part and guides driving of the movable part by the drive unit along the driving direction, wherein the guide portion is located at a center of the movable part when viewed in the driving direction (a support member 151 and a drive shaft 130 form a guide portion and the guide portion extends in the upper frame 111 of a sealed case 110 [corresponds to the recited fixed part], and the guide portion is located at a center of the mover 122 [corresponds to the recited movable part]), but does not disclose a gas supply portion that supplies gas between the movable part and the guide portion.
Yoshida teaches, in an analogous actuator field of endeavor, a gas supply portion that supplies gas between the movable part and the guide portion (Yoshida English translation, p. 3:35-4:2 and fig. 1, an actuator 10 comprises a cylinder 20 [corresponds to the recited fixed part], a rod 24 [corresponds to the recited movable part], and an exhaust groove 44 [corresponds to the recited gas supply portion] which discharges compressed gas. The rod 24 and the exhaust groove 44 of Yoshida can be combined with the actuator of Kim having the guide portion at the center of the movable part to dispose to gas supply portion of Yoshida to supply gas between the movable part and the guide portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the actuator of Kim to provide the gas supply portion as taught by Yoshida so that a piston floats to move smoothly in a cylinder (Yoshida English translation, p. 3:35-38).
PNG
media_image1.png
818
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kim Fig. 1
Regarding claim 2, Kim as modified by Yoshida teaches the actuator as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the drive unit annularly surrounds the guide portion when viewed in the driving direction (see annotated Kim fig. 1 above, the magnet 112b and the coil 121b [correspond to the recited drive unit] surrounds the drive shaft 130 [corresponds to the recited guide portion] when viewed in the driving direction).
Claims 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sen (CN 114078682A), in view of Kim (KR 100273437B1).
Regarding claim 3, Sen discloses, in figs. 2 and 3, a tilt control device (control unit 60) comprising:
a plurality of actuators that control a tilt of a driven body by driving a plurality of driven locations in the driven body (Sen English translation, p. 15:21-25, the control unit 60 controls a plurality of actuators 86 to control tilt of a carrier table 2 [corresponds to the recited driven body]. The driven locations are locations where the plurality of actuators 86 is positioned), but does not disclose each of the actuators includes a fixed part, a movable part that is located at the driven location, a drive unit that drives the movable part together with the driven location relative to the fixed part along a driving direction, and a guide portion that extends in the driving direction in the fixed part and guides driving of the movable part and the driven location by the drive unit along the driving direction, wherein the guide portion is located at a center of the movable part when viewed in the driving direction.
Kim teaches, in an analogous actuator field of endeavor, each of the actuators (linear actuator 100) (see annotated Kim fig. 1 above) includes
a fixed part (an upper frame 111, an intermediate frame 112, and a lower frame 113 form a recited fixed part),
a movable part that is located at the driven location (a mover 122. The driven location is where the mover 122 of the actuator 86 is positioned),
a drive unit (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The drive unit comprises a coil 54 and a permanent magnet 65 as described in ¶ 0033) that drives the movable part together with the driven location relative to the fixed part along a driving direction (Kim English translation, p. 4:1-9, a drive motor 120 comprises a plurality of coils 121b and the mover 122 comprises a magnet 112b to face the coil; p. 5:25-26, when power is applied to the drive motor 120, the mover 122 [corresponds to the recited movable part] reciprocates linearly. The driven location is where the mover 122 of the actuator 86 is positioned), and
a guide portion that extends in the driving direction in the fixed part and guides driving of the movable part and the driven location by the drive unit along the driving direction, wherein the guide portion is located at a center of the movable part when viewed in the driving direction (a support member 151 and a drive shaft 130 form a guide portion and the guide portion extends in the upper frame 111 of a sealed case 110 [corresponds to the recited fixed part], and the guide portion is located at a center of the mover 122 [corresponds to the recited movable part]. The driven location is where the actuator 86 is positioned).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tilt control device of Sen to provide the actuators as taught by Kim so that the actuator provides linear motion to facilitate operation of a mechanical device.
Regarding claim 5, Sen as modified by Kim teaches the tilt control device as in the rejection of claim 3, wherein the drive unit annularly surrounds the guide portion when viewed in the driving direction (see annotated Kim fig. 1 above, the magnet 112b and the coil 121b [correspond to the recited drive unit] surrounds the drive shaft 130 [corresponds to the recited guide portion] when viewed in the driving direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tilt control device of Sen as modified by Kim to provide the drive unit surrounding the guide portion as taught by Kim. It promotes the correct linear motion of the mover 122 of the actuator.
Regarding claim 6, Sen as modified by Kim teaches the tilt control device as in the rejection of claim 3, wherein at least three actuators are provided (Sen fig. 5, the tilt control device comprises at least three actuators 86a).
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sen in view of Kim, as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Yoshida.
Regarding claim 4, Sen as modified by Kim teaches the tilt control device as in the rejection of claim 3, but does not disclose each of the actuators includes a gas supply portion that supplies gas between the movable part and the guide portion.
Yoshida teaches, in an analogous actuator field of endeavor, each of the actuators includes a gas supply portion that supplies gas between the movable part and the guide portion (Yoshida English translation, p. 3:35-4:2 and fig. 1, an actuator 10 comprises a cylinder 20 [corresponds to the recited fixed part], a rod 24 [corresponds to the recited movable part], and an exhaust groove 44 [corresponds to the recited gas supply portion] which discharges compressed gas. The rod 24 and the exhaust groove 44 of Yoshida can be combined with the actuator of Kim having the guide portion at the center of the movable part to dispose to gas supply portion of Yoshida to supply gas between the movable part and the guide portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tilt control device of Sen as modified by Kim to provide the gas supply portion as taught by Yoshida so that a piston floats to move smoothly in a cylinder (Yoshida English translation, p. 3:35-38).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sen in view of Kim, as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2004/0150814, hereinafter Yamamoto).
Regarding claim 7, Sen as modified by Kim teaches the tilt control device as in the rejection of claim 3, wherein a table as the driven body whose tilt is controlled by the tilt control device (Sen English translation, p. 15:21-25, the control unit 60 controls a plurality of actuators 86 to control tilt of a carrier table 2 [corresponds to the recited driven body]), but does not disclose a positioning device (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Specification of the instant application does not provide what components make up the positioning device although it presents a stage device 100 can work as a positioning device or a driving device to which an actuator and a tilt control device can be applied. The stage device 100 comprises a x-stage and y-stage, and equivalents thereof (¶ 0019). However, as discussed in 112(b) rejection above, the stage device 100 is not necessarily the positioning device) for positioning the table.
Yamamoto teaches, in an analogous manufacturing table device field of endeavor, a positioning device positions the table (fig. 4B and ¶ 0044, a stage unit 5 provided with a table 7 comprises a horizontally moving unit 43 [corresponds to the recited x-stage and y-stage] driven by a motor. The moving unit 43 moves the table 7 in the x and y directions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tilt control device of Sen as modified by Kim to provide the positioning device as taught by Yamamoto in order to place the table in a right place for process operation.
Regarding claim 8, Sen as modified by Kim and Yamamoto teaches the tilt control device as in the rejection of claim 7, wherein a processing apparatus processes a workpiece placed on the table that is positioned by the positioning device (Sen English translation, p. 6:8-10, a substrate W [corresponds to the recited workpiece] is placed on the table 2 and is processed by a processing apparatus. Examiner notes claim does not present what the processing apparatus is).
Regarding claim 9, Sen as modified by Kim and Yamamoto teaches the tilt control device as in the rejection of claim 8, wherein a device manufacturing method comprising: manufacturing a device through processing of the workpiece using the processing apparatus (Sen English translation, p. 6:8-10, the substrate W [corresponds to the recited device] is processed through a manufacturing method by using the processing apparatus. Examiner notes claim dose not present what the device manufacturing method is).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Akashi (JP 3202314B2) discloses a tilt control device comprising a plurality of actuators and a table.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/S.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723