DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently presented for examination.
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 references cited in the PCT international search report by the International Searching Authority of the USPTO have been considered, but will not be listed on any patent resulting from this application because they were not provided on a separate list in compliance with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1). In order to have the references printed on such resulting patent, a separate listing, preferably on a PTO/SB/08 form, must be filed within the set period for reply to this Office action.
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 5-10 and 17-20 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “less than 5 mm”, and the claim also recites “2 mm, 1 mm, 0.1 mm, 0.05 mm, 0.02 mm, or 0.01 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the third information is received less than 1000 ms, 500 ms, 200 ms, 100 ms, 50 ms, 20 ms, 10 ms, 5 ms, or 2 ms after the first information is received” at lines 1-2. These limitations have the form of a method step, however claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, is directed to a system which is presumed to be an apparatus. The apparatus does not exactually receive any information, such that there is no time after a first information is received to compare the time at which a third information is received. Because the examiner understands the claimed invention of claim 1 to be an apparatus, the examiner understands there to be no temporal component for the comparison. Phrased differently: because the claimed apparatus could be located in a warehouse or on a truck during transportation while not energized, the device would still be understood to potentially infringe the hypothetically issued claim. How would one having ordinary skill in the art determine when information has been received in such circumstance? The preamble of claim 6 modifies the system of claim 2, not the instructions.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “less than 1000 ms”, and the claim also recites “500 ms, 200 ms, 100 ms, 50 ms, 20 ms, 10 ms, 5 ms, or 2 ms” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and therefore is rejected for at least the reasons presented above with respect to claim 6.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “within every 1000 ms”, and the claim also recites “500 ms, 200 ms, 100 ms, 50 ms, 20 ms, 10 ms, 5 ms, or 2 ms” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “less than 10 deg”, and the claim also recites “5 deg, 2 deg, 1 deg, 0.5 deg, 0.2 deg, or 0.1 deg” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and therefore is rejected for at least the reasons presented above with respect to claim 8.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “more than 5 cm”, and the claim also recites “10 cm, 20 cm, 50 cm, or 100 cm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 17 recites the broad recitation “less than 10 deg”, and the claim also recites “5 deg, 2 deg, 1 deg, 0.5 deg, 0.2 deg, or 0.1 deg” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 18-20 depend from claim 17 and therefore is rejected for at least the reasons presented above with respect to claim 17.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 19 recites the broad recitation “less than 10 deg”, and the claim also recites “5 deg, 2 deg, 1 deg, 0.5 deg, 0.2 deg, or 0.1 deg” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 20 recites the broad recitation “less than 10 deg”, and the claim also recites “5 deg, 2 deg, 1 deg, 0.5 deg, 0.2 deg, or 0.1 deg” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 11-15
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent 4,052,603 to Karlson (hereinafter “Karlson”).
Regarding claim 1, Karlson discloses a system (see Fig. 1) for controlling motion of a stage (11) based on input from a user, the system comprising: one or more actuators (motors 23, 24, 25, 26; see Col. 6, lines 35-48) coupled to the stage (11), wherein at least one actuator (motors) of the one or more actuators is operable to move the stage with respect to at least one degree of freedom (see Col. 7, lines 27-36); one or more processors (controller 85); a first sensor (“Table 11 reference position sensors 27 and 29 for bringing the table center to a 0, 0 coordinate reference position,” one of two sensors 27 and 29, including electric eyes 31, 33, blades 35, 37, interferometers 39, 41; see Col. 4, lines 36-55) operably coupled to at least one of the one or more processors (85), wherein the first sensor is coupled to the stage (11; see Fig. 1); one or more memories (see Col. 9, lines 41-44) each operably coupled to a respective at least one of the one or more processors (85), wherein at least one of the one or more memories comprise instructions that, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors (85), cause the system to: receive first information (reference position and X position; see Col. 7, lines 27-36) based at least in part upon a first signal (position information from sensor 27 and interferometer 39; see Col. 7, lines 27-34 and 46-59) from the first sensor (27), wherein the first information is based at least in part upon a first input from the user (alignment target information; see Col. 5, lines 24-38 and Col. 7, lines 39-46), the first information corresponds to a first value associated with the first input (sensor information depends on operator indicating that alignment should be performed; see Col. 5, lines 24-30), and the stage is at a first stage location (location of stage 11 prior to alignment) when the first information is received (see Col. 4, lines 39-43); and provide second information (sensor information from sensor 29 and interferometer 41; see Col. 4, lines 36-55) that causes a first actuator (selected of fine or coarse motors) of the one or more actuators (motors) to move the stage (11), wherein the second information is based at least in part upon the first information (sensor information from sensor 27), the stage moves in a stage travel direction (see Col. 5, lines 27-36; X and Y movement of table ) in response to the provided second information (at least origin point information from second sensor 29), and the first sensor (at least portions of sensors 27 and 29 in the blades 35 and 37 are attached to the table and understood to move along with the table) moves with the stage in the stage travel direction (movement to plate table relative to reference position 0, 0; see Col. 4, lines 39-43) in response to the provided second information (sensor information from sensor 29 and interferometer 41; see Col. 4, lines 36-55).
Regarding claim 2, Karlson discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Karlson discloses that the instructions, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors (85), cause the system to: receive third information (different values such as workpiece distance and workpiece angles are calculatable and calculated based on information about X and Y positions; see Col. 9, lines 1-65, iterative values determined by processor 85) based at least in part upon a second signal (second position coordinates; see Col. 9, lines 18-23) from the first sensor (sensor 27), wherein the third information (different values such as workpiece distance and workpiece angles are calculatable and calculated based on information about X and Y positions) is based at least in part upon a second input from the user (see Col. 5, lines 24-46; alignment at least initiated and concluded by user input with joystick) the third information corresponding to a second value (X and Y values, desired directions, desired speed of travel; see Col. 5, lines 30-41) associated with the second input, the stage (11) is at a second stage location when the third information is received (stage may be in location corresponding to a completed alignment; see Col. 5, lines 44-49), and the second stage location is different from the first stage location (location prior to alignment; see Col. 4, lines 39-43); and provide fourth information that causes the first actuator (motor assembly; 23, 24, 25, 26) to move the stage (11; see Col. 7, lines 39-46), wherein the fourth information (alignment and adjustment using joystick) is based at least in part upon the third information (information related to completed alignment and iteratively performed alignments may be performed; see Col. 7, lines 59-67).
Regarding claim 5, Karlson discloses the limitations of claim 2, and further Karlson discloses that the first sensor (sensor portion 35 of first sensor 27) moves less than 5 mm, 2 mm, 1 mm, 0.1 mm, 0.05 mm, 0.02 mm, or 0.01 mm relative to the stage (sensor portion 35 understood to be rigidly coupled to table 11 such that there will be 0 mm relative movement between the stage and the sensor during movement of the stage) in response to the first input and that the first sensor (sensor portion 35 of first sensor 27) moves less than 5 mm, 2 mm, 1 mm, 0.1 mm, 0.05 mm, 0.02 mm, or 0.01 mm relative to the stage (sensor portion 35 understood to be rigidly coupled to table 11 such that there will be 0 mm relative movement between the stage and the sensor during movement of the stage) in response to the second input (second position coordinates; see Col. 9, lines 18-23).
Regarding claim 8, Karlson discloses the limitations of claim 2, and further Karlson discloses that the first input (alignment target information; see Col. 5, lines 24-38 and Col. 7, lines 39-46) corresponds to a first direction (select one of the X or Y direction, directions may be selectable in X and Y directions; see Col. 7, lines 49-53) in a plane (X-Y plane; see axes shown in Fig. 1), the provided second information (sensor information from sensor 29 and interferometer 41; see Col. 4, lines 36-55) causes the stage (11) to move in the stage travel direction (stage moved in X and Y direction; see Col. 7, lines 49-59) which, projected to the plane, points in the same direction as the first direction (movement travels in the X-Y direction) to within less than 10 deg, 5 deg, 2 deg, 1 deg, 0.5 deg, 0.2 deg, or 0.1 deg, the second input (second position coordinates; see Col. 9, lines 18-23) corresponds to a second direction in the plane (select the other of the X and Y directions), the provided fourth information (alignment and adjustment using joystick) causes the stage to move in a third direction (operator can cause the stage 11 to be indexed in X and Y directions, understood to include opposite second direction) in the plane, the third direction points in the same direction as the second direction (the selected of the X and Y direction) to within less than 10 deg, 5 deg, 2 deg, 1 deg, 0.5 deg, 0.2 deg, or 0.1 deg such that an angle between the first direction and the third direction is about 180 degrees (opposite first or second direction is possible with indexing control; see), the first input corresponds to a push or pull action by the user (actuation of joystick; see Col. 5, lines 30-38), and the second input corresponds to a pull or push action by the user, respectively. The joystick control is understood to allow movement of the stage in positive and negative X and Y directions independently.
Regarding claim 11, Karlson discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Karlson discloses that the first information is based at least in part upon a contact between a component (chuck 13) coupled to the stage (11) and a workpiece (wafer 21; wafer secured to table and thus indirectly to sensor components, Col. 4, lines 33-36).
Regarding claim 12, Karlson discloses the limitations of claim 11, and further Karlson discloses that the component coupled to the stage (11) comprises a spindle (13; rotatable; see at least Fig. 5 step 5 and Col. 4, lines 26-33), and the spindle is configured to receive and attach a cutting bit or a probing bit (chuck 13 has vacuum ports capable of securing a wafer, and thus would be capable of securing a cutting bit or probing bit with a planar surface similar to the wafer).
Regarding claim 13, Karlson discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Karlson discloses that the system further comprises: a device (13) coupled to the stage (11), a second sensor (sensor 29 and components thereof, equivalent to sensor 27) operably coupled to at least one of the one or more processors (85), wherein the second sensor (29) is coupled to the device (13; rigidly coupled to the stage) and to the stage (11), and the second sensor (29) is different than the first sensor (27; sensors are physically different from one another at least in location and angular orientation as shown in Fig. 1); and wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors (85), cause the system to: receive fifth information (sensed Y direction information; see Col. 4, lines 49-55) based at least in part upon a third signal from the second sensor (29), wherein the fifth information is based at least in part upon contact between the device (13) and a workpiece (wafer 21; see Fig. 1, position information corresponds to sensor component rigidly coupled to table 11), the fifth information corresponds to a third value associated with the contact, and the stage (11) is at a third stage location when the fifth information is received and provide sixth information (see Col. 5, lines 30-38) that causes the first actuator of the one or more actuators (motors 23, 24, 25, 26) to move the stage (11), wherein the sixth information is based at least in part upon the fifth information (information based on alignment information), and the second sensor moves with the stage in response to the provided sixth information (information from user used to move stage 11; Col. 5, lines 36-38 and stages may be repeatedly aligned, see Col. 9, lines 48-56).
Regarding claim 14, Karlson discloses the limitations of claim 13, and further Karlson discloses that the device comprises a spindle (13; rotatable; see at least Fig. 5 step 5 and Col. 4, lines 26-33), and the spindle is configured to receive and attach a cutting bit or a probing bit (chuck 13 has vacuum ports capable of securing a wafer, and thus would be capable of securing a cutting bit or probing bit with a planar surface similar to the wafer).
Regarding claim 15, Karlson discloses a system (see Fig. 1) for controlling motion of a stage (11) based on input from a user, the system comprising: one or more actuators (motors 23, 24, 25, 26; see Col. 6, lines 35-48) coupled to the stage (11), wherein at least one actuator (motors) of the one or more actuators is operable to move the stage with respect to at least one degree of freedom (see Col. 7, lines 27-36); one or more processors (controller 85); a first sensor (“Table 11 reference position sensors 27 and 29 for bringing the table center to a 0, 0 coordinate reference position,” one of two sensors 27 and 29, including electric eyes 31, 33, blades 35, 37, interferometers 39, 41; see Col. 4, lines 36-55) operably coupled to at least one of the one or more processors (85), wherein the first sensor is coupled to the stage (11; see Fig. 1), and the sensor (27) is coupled to an input surface (side surfaces of table abutting sensor component 35; see Fig. 1); one or more memories (see Col. 9, lines 41-44) each operably coupled to a respective at least one of the one or more processors (85), wherein at least one of the one or more memories comprise instructions that, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors (85), cause the system to: receive first information (reference position and X position; see Col. 7, lines 27-36) based at least in part upon a first signal (position information from sensor 27 and interferometer 39; see Col. 7, lines 27-34 and 46-59) from the first sensor (27), wherein the first information is based at least in part upon a first push action from the user (alignment target information and user generated joy-stick push or pull action; see Col. 5, lines 24-38 and Col. 7, lines 39-46), the first information corresponds to a first value associated with the first input executed by the user on the input surface (sensor information depends on operator indicating that alignment should be performed, understood to cause motors 25, 26 to act on stage surface; see Col. 5, lines 24-30 and see Fig. 1), the first information corresponds to a first value associated with the first push action (see Col. 5, lines 24-30), and the stage is at a first stage location (location of stage 11 prior to alignment) when the first information is received (see Col. 4, lines 39-43); and provide second information (sensor information from sensor 29 and interferometer 41; see Col. 4, lines 36-55) that causes a first actuator (selected of fine or coarse motors) of the one or more actuators (motors) to move the stage (11), wherein the second information is based at least in part upon the first information (sensor information from sensor 27), the stage moves in a stage travel direction (see Col. 5, lines 27-36; X and Y movement of table ) in response to the provided second information (at least origin point information from second sensor 29), and the first sensor (at least portions of sensors 27 and 29 in the blades 35 and 37 are attached to the table and understood to move along with the table) moves with the stage in the stage travel direction (movement to plate table relative to reference position 0, 0; see Col. 4, lines 39-43) in response to the provided second information (sensor information from sensor 29 and interferometer 41; see Col. 4, lines 36-55).
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 9
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karlson as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2018/0225113 to Hasegawa (hereinafter “Hasegawa”)
Regarding claim 9, Karlson discloses the limitations of claim 8, and further Karlson discloses that the first value relates to a force (displacement values are understood to be related to force, as force can be expressed as a function of acceleration, which has a value related to distance or displacement). Karlson does not explicitly disclose that the first sensor is a force sensor.
Hasegawa teaches a work table (see Fig. 1) with a robot (1) which can move various pieces of work relative to the robot (see paragraph [0049]). The robot may be provided with multiple sensors such as a detection sensor (21; see paragraph [0051]) and a force sensor (P; see paragraph [0043]). The sensors cooperate to facilitate control of the robot to a desired position within its movable range (see paragraph [0043]). Hasegawa teaches that the force sensors can be used with a control unit to perform position control (see paragraph [0081]) of the movable robot and that the imaging sensor can be used to detect a position of the robot relative to a workpiece (see paragraph [0054]-[0055]).
It would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Karlson to include further conventional sensors such as force sensors, as taught by Hasegawa. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting apparatus would advantageously allow for improved detection of workpieces relative to the movable stage of Karlson, as well as a positioning control of the stage using a known movement control technique within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Thus, the combination of Karlson and Hasegawa teaches the limitations of claim 9.
Claim 10
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karlson as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, Karlson discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Karlson discloses that the at least one actuator (one of motors 23, 24, 25, 26) of the one or more actuators is operable to translate the stage (11). Karlson does not explicitly disclose that the actuators are operable to translate the stage by more than 5 cm. Karlson teaches that movement may be produced which is 160 micro inches per step (see Col. 6, lines 37-40; equivalent to 0.0004064 cm). Karlson does not suggest a limit for the number of steps which can be adjusted.
The MPEP teaches that changes in size or proportion may be obvious. “Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” (See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). There is nothing of record that suggests that changing the size of the steps adjusted by the coarse motors of Karlson or performing more steps until the claimed translation dimensions are produced would cause the device of Karlson to perform differently.
It would have thus been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Karlson to produce either steps which are 5 or more centimeters or to adjust the position of the stage by initiating enough steps to move the stage 5 or more centimeters, without modification of the principles of operation of the device of Karlson.
Thus, Karlson teaches the limitations of claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 16 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:
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach “wherein the first value corresponds to a first magnitude, the second value corresponds to a second magnitude, the second magnitude is less than the first magnitude, the second information relates to a first stage velocity, the fourth information relates to a second stage velocity, and the second stage velocity is less than the first stage velocity,” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. Karlson teaches that the sensors detect position information such that position and angle information can be determined (see Fig. 7A formulae), however Karlson does not fairly suggest any temporal component which suggests that a second stage velocity is less than a first stage velocity.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach “wherein the first value corresponds to a first magnitude, the second value corresponds to a second magnitude, the second magnitude is less than the first magnitude, the second information relates to a first stage target stage position, providing the second information causes a first stage displacement, the fourth information relates to a second target stage position, providing the fourth information causes the second stage displacement, and the second stage displacement is less than the first stage displacement,” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. Karlson teaches that the sensors detect position information such that position and angle information can be determined (see Fig. 7A formulae), however Karlson does not fairly suggest a second stage displacement is less than a first stage displacement.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach “wherein the third information is based at least in part upon a second push action executed by the user on the input surface, the third information corresponds to a second value associated with the second push action, the second value is less than the first value, the stage is at a second stage location when the third information is received, and the second stage location is different from the first stage location; and provide fourth information that causes the first actuator to move the stage, wherein the fourth information is based at least in part upon the third information, and the fourth information reduces the speed of the stage,” in combination with the remaining limitations of claim.
Claims 6-7, and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach “wherein the third information is received less than 1000 ms, 500 ms, 200 ms, 100 ms, 50 ms, 20 ms, 10 ms, 5 ms, or 2 ms after the first information is received,” in combination with the remaining limitations of claim.
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:
The prior art made of record is directed to positioning devices and methods for stages.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights