DETAILED ACTION
This application, 18/476,310, attorney docket 01011-01694, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This application is assigned to Sumitomo Heavy Industries, Ltd., and is a continuation of PCT/JP2022/016511, filed 03/31/2022, claims foreign priority to 2021-062640, filed 04/01/2021 Claims 1-15 and new claim s 16 and 17 are pending and are considered below. Note that examiner will use numbers in parentheses to indicate numbered elements in prior art figures, and brackets to point to paragraph numbers where quoted material or specific teachings can be found.
Response to Arguments
On page 7 of his response filed 6/19/2026, applicant argues that claims 1 (and on page 8, claim 15) is distinguished from the art of record Tanaka because Tanaka allegedly does not teach two slider parts that support the alleged first guide from below. Examiner disagrees. The sliders (7) of Tanaka supports the weight of the upper slider assembly (30) and transfer it down to the base 136 through guides (6), and the upper slider assembly (30) is above the second sliders (6) so it supports the assembly (30) from below.
Applicant correctly argues that the mapping of claim 3 is inconsistent with claim 1 because support bar 21 is a part of the second slide. It is clear from the figure that the first slider 30 does not include member 21 and the first guide must be 25, the typographical error has been corrected below.
Applicant then argues that the member (21) is not a connecting portion for sliders (7). Applicant appears to argue that the member 21 is not a continuous element with the sliders. Examiner disagrees. The claim does not require that limitation, only that the assembly is connected.
Finally applicant argues that the §103 rejection of claim is improper because the rejection allegedly lacks a motivation to combine, and therefore uses impermissible hindsight to conclude that the elements can be combined. Examiner disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here the claim recites an intended use different from Tanaka, but the required characteristics of an inspection stage and an exposure apparatus (stepper) are substantially the same: consistent height and smooth motion in an x-y plane that can be precisely controlled. Tanaka’266 makes clear that one skilled, a semiconductor equipment engineer, would be familiar with both types of equipment and that the uses are similar enough to make the substitution obvious.
Because the applicant’s arguments were not persuasive, the rejection must be maintained and an amended rejection is presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Tanaka (U.S. 2002/0180312).
As for claim 1,
Tanaka teaches in figure 1 stage apparatus comprising:
a first slider (28/30)
a first guide (25) that guides movement of the first slider in a first direction;
a second slider that includes two slider parts (7) separated from each other in the first direction (x-direction) and supporting the first guide from below (attached to 136);
and a second guide (6) that guides movement of the second slider.
As for claim 2,
Tanaka teaches the stage apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the stage apparatus is used in a vacuum environment. (Tanaka, [0031]).
As for claim 3,
The stage apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second slider includes a connecting portion that connects the two slider parts (21).
As for claim 4,
Tanaka teaches the stage apparatus according to claim 3, and teaches in figure a cross-sectional area of the connecting portion perpendicular to the first direction is smaller than cross-sectional areas of the slider parts perpendicular to the first direction (the cross section of 21 is enclosed by the side of the slider 7).
As for claims 5 and 6,
Tanaka teaches the stage apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first slider and second slider are driven by an air servo. ([0063]).
As for claim 7,
Tanaka teaches the stage apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second slider is driven by a linear motor. (fine movement is controlled by piezo-actuators 41-46 [0063]).
As for claim 8
Tanaka teaches the stage apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a movable range of a center of gravity of the first slider that moves with the movement of the first slider is between two support positions in the first direction in which the two slider parts support the first guide. (The entire range is confined between the sliders so the center of gravity must be between them).
As for claims 9 and 10 ,
Tanaka teaches the stage apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a restraining member for restraining vertical movement of the two slider parts with respect to the second guide, in a state where the two slider parts are non-contact with the second guide. (Figure 2 shows air pads 51, constrain the slider)
As for claim 11,
Tanaka teaches the stage apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the restraining member is upper surface air pads and lower surface air pads that are disposed on upper surfaces and lower surfaces of the two slider parts and inject compressed gas toward a facing surface of the second guide, and the lower surface air pads are provided between the upper surface air pads and support positions in the first direction. (Figure 2 shows air pads 51, constrain the slider on top and bottom, with gas injection by line 8, described in [0045,0053])
As for claim 12,
Tanaka teaches in figure 4 an exposure apparatus comprising: the stage apparatus (100) according to claim 1, wherein the exposure apparatus positions a substrate by using the stage apparatus (131 in figure 4).
As for claim 14,
Tanaka teaches in figure 11 a device manufacturing method comprising: a step of manufacturing a device by using the exposure apparatus according to claim 12 (S9).
As for claim 15,
Tanaka teaches in figure 2, a stage apparatus comprising:
a first slider (5);
a first guide (21) that guides movement of the first slider in a first direction (x direction);
a second slider (7) that includes two slider parts separated from each other in the first direction and supporting the first guide from below;
and a second guide (6) that guides movement of the second slider, wherein the first slider and the second slider are driven by an air servo ([0063]).
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Tanaka (U.S. 6,339,266, here called Tanaka’266).
As for claim 13,
Tanaka teaches the stage apparatus according to claim 1, but does not teach an inspection apparatus positions a substrate by using the stage apparatus.
However, Tanaka’266 teaches “further, the planar motor device and the stage device of the present invention can be suitably applied to the apparatus other than exposure apparatus, for example, to inspection apparatus and substrate transferring apparatus.”(co50, ln61+])
The inspection apparatus in an intended use for the stage, and would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to adapt the stage for inspections which require controllable motion in two direction. It has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).
Claims 16 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka.
As for claim 16,
Tanaka teaches the stage apparatus according to claim 1, and but does not teach that the first guide has a C-shaped cross-section with inward projections, taken perpendicular to the first direction.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use solid sidewalls instead of rods (42) which would result in the shape claimed. The court has held that a change in shape has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application to use the solid vertical sidewalls in the device of Tanaka. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
,
As for claim 17,
Tanaka teaches the stage apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the first guide has a C-shaped cross-section with inward projections, taken perpendicular to the first direction.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use solid sidewalls instead of rods (42) which would result in the shape claimed. The court has held that a change in shape has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application to use the solid vertical sidewalls in the device of Tanaka. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A BODNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4660. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th and every other Friday 7:30-5:30 Central time.
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, Yara Green can be reached at 571-270-3035. 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.
/JOHN A BODNAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights