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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention III in the reply filed on February 6, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims have been amended such that the products of each of Inventions I – III are no longer patentably distinct. Examiner finds the arguments persuasive and withdraws the restriction requirements set forth on December 18, 2025.
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 – 3 and 7 – 25 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.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 each recite the limitation “a ring mounted on the actuator housing” in the first paragraph of the body of the claims. Examiner notes that the preamble of the claims are directed towards a particle shield ... for an actuator housing. Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitations to positively require the ‘ring’ of the ‘particle shield’ to be mounted on the ‘actuator housing,’ such that the claims are directed towards ‘a particle shield ... and an actuator housing,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitations to recite functional language of the ‘ring,’ such that the claims are directed towards ‘a particle shield ... for an actuator housing.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitations as “a ring configured to be mounted on the actuator housing.”
Claims 1, 9, and 16 each further recite the limitation “the ring comprising a flange that is coupled to the actuator housing” in the first paragraph of the body of the claims. Examiner notes that the preamble of the claims are directed towards ‘a particle shield ... for an actuator housing.’ Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitations to positively require the ‘flange’ of the ‘particle shield’ to be coupled to the ‘actuator housing,’ such that the claims are directed towards ‘a particle shield ... and an actuator housing,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitations to recite functional language of the ‘flange,’ such that the claims are directed towards ‘a particle shield ... for an actuator housing.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitations as “the ring comprising a flange that is configured to be coupled to the actuator housing.”
Claims 1 and 9 each further recites the limitation “a plate mounted to the first Z-axis stage” in the last paragraph of the claims. Examiner notes that the preamble of the claims are directed towards ‘a particle shield ... for an actuator housing, the actuator housing containing a first Z-axis stage ...’ Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitations to positively require the ‘plate’ of the ‘particle shield’ to be mounted on the ‘first Z-axis stage,’ such that the claims are directed towards ‘a particle shield ... and an actuator housing,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitations to recite functional language of the ‘plate,’ such that the claims are directed towards ‘a particle shield ... for an actuator housing’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a plate configured to be mounted to the first Z-axis stage.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the plate comprising an aperture through which the second Z-axis stage passes” in the last paragraph of the claim. Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim is directed towards “a particle shield ... for an actuator housing, the actuator housing containing a first Z-axis stage, a second Z-axis stage ...” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require the ‘second Z-axis stage’ to pass through the ‘aperture’ of the ‘particle shield,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a particle shield ... and an actuator housing,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘aperture,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a particle shield ... for an actuator housing’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the plate comprising an aperture configured to allow the second Z-axis stage to pass through.”
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a plurality of apertures.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the “aperture” previously set forth in claim 1, or whether Applicant intends to set forth a second set of ‘apertures’ which are separate and independent from the ‘aperture’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a plurality of second apertures.”
Claims 13 and 25 each recite the limitation “the plate further comprises an aperture through which a second Z-axis stage passes.” Examiner notes that the claims are directed towards ‘a particle shied for an actuator housing’ and that the Specification teaches that the ‘second Z-axis stage’ is part of the ‘actuator housing’ (figure 1, elements 130 being the ‘second Z-axis stage’ and element 112 being the ‘actuator housing’; paragraph 20). Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitations to positively require the ‘second Z-axis stage’ of the ‘actuator housing’ to pass through the ‘aperture’ of the ‘particle shield,’ such that the claims are directed towards ‘a particle shield and an actuator housing,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitations to recite functional language of the ‘aperture,’ such that the claims are directed towards ‘a particle shield for an actuator housing’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitations as “the plate comprising an aperture configured to allow a second Z-axis stage of the actuator housing to pass through.”
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a plate mounted to a first Z-axis stage” in the last paragraph of the claim. Examiner notes that the preamble of the claims are directed towards “a particle shield for an actuator housing” and that the Specification teaches that the ‘first Z-axis stage’ is part of the ‘actuator housing’ (figure 1, element 120 being the ‘first Z-axis stage’ and element 112 being the ‘actuator housing’; paragraph 20). Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitations to positively require the ‘plate’ of the ‘particle shield’ to be mounted on the ‘first Z-axis stage’ of the ‘actuator housing,’ such that the claims are directed towards ‘a particle shield and an actuator housing,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitations to recite functional language of the ‘plate,’ such that the claims are directed towards ‘a particle shield for an actuator housing’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a plate configured to be mounted to a first Z-axis stage of the actuator housing.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 7 – 10, 12 – 18, and 20 - 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wakiyama (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0130677).
As to claim 1, Wakiyama teaches a particle shield (abstract), the particle shield comprising: a ring configured to be mounted on an actuator housing (figure 1, element 56 being the ‘ring’; paragraph 36), the ring comprising a flange that is configured to be coupled to the actuator housing and a collar that extends from the flange along a Z coordinate direction (figure 2, see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
324
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wakiyama further teaches a plate that is configured to be mounted to a first Z-axis stage of the actuator housing (figure 2, element 30 being the ‘plate’; paragraph 31), the plate comprising an aperture configured to allow a second Z-axis stage of the actuator housing to pass through (figure 2, element 30a being the ‘aperture’; paragraph 32), and a skirt at an outside perimeter of the plate that extends along the Z coordinate direction (figure 2, see below), wherein the collar and the plate are coaxial and do not contact each other during rotation of the first -axis stage and remain within a same plate that is orthogonal to the Z coordinate direction and do not contact each other during movement along the Z coordinate direction by the first Z-axis stage (figure 2, elements 30 and 56, see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
324
671
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Wakiyama teaches that the skirt is radially inside the collar (figure 2, see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
324
621
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3, Wakiyama teaches that the collar is radially inside the skirt (figure 2, see below).
PNG
media_image4.png
324
504
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 7, Wakiyama teaches that the plate further comprises a plurality of second apertures through which lift pins extend (figures 2 and 3, elements 30b being the ‘plurality of second apertures’ and elements 24 being the ‘lift pins’; paragraph 38 – 39).
As to claim 8, Examiner notes that the limitations of claim 8 further define the ‘second Z-axis stage’ which is functionally recited by the claim. It is the position of the Examiner that the particle shield of Wakiyama is configured for use with a second Z-axis stage, wherein a chuck is mounted to the second Z-axis stage.
As to claims 9, 10, 12, and 13, the discussion of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
As to claim 14, the discussion of claim 8 is incorporated herein.
As to claim 15, the discussion of claim 7 is incorporated herein.
As to claims 16 – 18, the discussion of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
As to claim 20, the discussion of claim 7 is incorporated herein.
As to claim 21, the discussion of claim 2 is incorporated herein.
As to claim 22, the discussion of claim 3 is incorporated herein.
As to claim 23, Wakiyama teaches that the collar is circular and the skirt is circular (figure 2, see above).
As to claims 24 and 25, the discussion of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
As to claim 26, the discussion of claim 8 is incorporated herein.
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(s) 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakiyama as applied to claims 9 and 16 above.
As to claim 11, Wakiyama does not teach the distance between the collar and an outer perimeter of the plate. However, it is the position that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the particle shield of Wakiyama, such that the distance between the collar and the outer perimeter of the plate is no more than 2 mm, so as to ensure that the collar properly encloses the plate, as desired by Wakiyama (figure 3, see below; paragraph 36). Examiner notes that, while the Specification teaches the distance being no more than 2 mm, the Specification does not teach any special benefit for a distance of no more than 2 mm (paragraphs 17, 28, 31, and 32).
PNG
media_image5.png
321
621
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to claim 19, the discussion of claim 11 is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (EST).
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights