DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
________________________________________
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed February 27, 2024 has been considered.
________________________________________
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 permits rail connections through movable longitudinal slides; it does not require direct attachment exclusive of those slides. The September 1, 2026 substitute specification changes the named members to linear rails but retains the guide-to-longitudinal-slide connections in paragraphs [0030] and [0037] and the third-rail connection to the cross slide connecting element in paragraph [0044]. These interfaces and claim 5 support that construction. Paragraph [0007] permits different spring designs; the leaf-plane geometry added by claim 3 is not required by claim 1.
________________________________________
References Used
Reference 1 (Primary) - US 2020/0200324 A1.
Reference 2 - US 2020/0246924 A1.
Reference 3 - US 2019/0063669 A1.
Reference 4 - US 7,550,880 B1.
________________________________________
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 102
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reference 1.
Claim Text
(L1) Device for positioning an end effector in a space spanned by a longitudinal direction, by a transverse direction transverse to the longitudinal direction and by a vertical direction transverse to the longitudinal direction and transverse to the transverse direction, comprising: (L2) a first linear rail, wherein the first linear rail is aligned in the longitudinal direction, and a first longitudinal slide is arranged on the first linear rail and is movable in the longitudinal direction, (L3) a second linear rail, wherein the second linear rail is aligned parallel to the first linear rail in the longitudinal direction, and a second longitudinal slide is arranged on the second linear rail and is movable in the longitudinal direction, and (L4) a third linear rail guiding a cross slide, wherein the third linear rail is connected to the first linear rail via a first guide element and connected to the second linear rail via a second guide element, (L5) wherein the first guide element is a first spring structure that is rigid in the vertical direction and the second guide element is a second spring structure that is rigid in the vertical direction; (L6) wherein the first spring structure is rigid in the longitudinal direction and elastic in the transverse direction; (L7) wherein the second spring structure is elastically torsionable about the vertical direction.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses a gantry-type positioning device having planar base B and movable element S carrying a stage for positioning a wafer, paragraphs [0020]-[0023] and Figure 3. The source directions Y, X and Z correspond respectively to the claimed longitudinal, transverse and vertical directions. (L2) Paragraph [0020] defines each linear axis as including a linear guide, linear motor and position-measuring device. The linear guide of linear axis Y2 is the first linear rail, and the movable rotor of first linear drive LMY2 together with longitudinal beam Cc provides the first longitudinal slide, paragraphs [0020]-[0021]. (L3) The parallel linear guide of linear axis Y1 and movable rotor of first linear drive LMY1 with longitudinal beam Ca provide the second linear rail and second longitudinal slide, paragraphs [0020]-[0021]. (L4) Guide beam Cd with guide surface GS provides the third linear rail guiding movable element S as the cross slide through lateral air bearing L1, paragraphs [0023]-[0027]. In the Figure 3 embodiment, flexure joints G2' and G1 connect guide beam Cd to longitudinal beams Cc and Ca, respectively, paragraph [0029]. These connections through the movable longitudinal supports satisfy the claimed rail connections under the construction above. (L5) Flexure joints G2' and G1 are the first and second spring structures. Paragraphs [0022] and [0029] expressly restrict their permitted movements to the stated in-plane degrees of freedom and block vertical translation, providing the claimed vertical rigidity. (L6) Flexure joint G2' permits translation in source direction X and rotation about source direction Z while blocking all other degrees of freedom, paragraph [0029]. It therefore provides transverse elasticity and longitudinal rigidity; the claim does not exclude its additional vertical-axis rotation. (L7) Flexure joint G1 permits elastic rotation about source direction Z while blocking the other degrees of freedom, paragraphs [0022] and [0029], providing the claimed second spring structure's vertical-axis torsion. These mappings concern the same Figure 3 embodiment.
________________________________________
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 103
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim Text
(L1) Device according to claim 1, (L2) wherein the first spring structure comprises a first leaf spring arranged parallel to the longitudinal direction and parallel to the vertical direction.
Analysis
(L1) The Reference 1 apparatus and complete analysis of claim 1 are incorporated. Its Figure 3 flexure joint G2' provides transverse translation and vertical-axis rotation, while flexure joint G1 supplies the other claimed guide's vertical-axis rotation. (L2) Reference 2 provides plate-shaped first elastic elements 332 and second elastic elements 333 of first bending part 33, joined through first connection element 331 between first section 31 and second section 32 (paragraph [0023], Figures 4-5 and 7-8; claim 5). The proposed implementation uses that folded-leaf translation module at Reference 1's G2', with the leaf lengths along the claimed longitudinal direction and their plate depth vertical, so bending across their thickness supplies transverse compliance. The orientation is the selected installation of the disclosed plate geometry, not a measurement of an unscaled figure. Reference 3 expressly teaches combining a flexure joint with a folded joint at mounting element B2 to support a gantry member while permitting transverse movement and vertical-axis rotation and blocking the other degrees of freedom (paragraph [0037], Figures 3-5). Following that arrangement, the translation module is combined in series with a vertical-axis flexure pivot within the replacement for G2'; it is not substituted as a translation-only constraint. Reference 3's first direction X and second direction Y correspond respectively to the claimed longitudinal and transverse directions, unlike Reference 1's axis lettering. The combined joint retains longitudinal and vertical restraint and the frame's required rotational accommodation, while first elastic element 332 supplies the added leaf in the stated plane.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement Reference 1's translating-and-rotating guide connection using Reference 2's modular folded-leaf structure together with the rotational flexure arrangement taught by Reference 3, to obtain a replaceable precision connection without removing the frame's required in-plane freedom. Reference 2 identifies manufacturing, assembly and repair benefits of separate flexure modules; Reference 3 expressly addresses supporting and carrying a gantry member without introducing bending forces by combining translation and rotation. Orienting the plate depth vertically and the compliant bending direction transversely implements the stiffness directions already required by Reference 1. Keeping the rotational flexure in series makes the combination technically compatible and predictably retains the intended guide movement.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim Text
(L1) Device according to claim 3, (L2) wherein the first spring structure comprises a second leaf spring connected to the first leaf spring and arranged parallel to the first leaf spring.
Analysis
(L1) The complete Reference 1, Reference 2 and Reference 3 combination and analysis of claim 3 are incorporated. (L2) Reference 2's Figure 5 and paragraph [0023] disclose adjacent parallel first elastic element 332 and second elastic element 333 connected through first connection element 331. They provide the first and second leaves in the inherited guide module. The illustrated module includes two such pairs; the claim does not exclude additional leaves, and the reference expressly permits different numbers and arrangements. The Reference 3 rotational flexure is retained in series as explained for claim 3, so the parallel-leaf module is not assumed to supply every required rotational freedom by itself.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 2's connected parallel elastic elements when constructing the first guide in the inherited combination, because their folded connection provides the disclosed compact, replaceable translation-flexure module. Retaining the connected pair uses the module's existing compliant load path, while Reference 3's separate rotational flexure accommodates the gantry's rotation. The predictable result is the parallel connected leaves with the required guide motion preserved.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim Text
(L1) Device according to claim 4, (L2) wherein the first leaf spring and the second leaf spring, when viewed in the longitudinal direction, comprise a front end and a rear end, wherein the first leaf spring and the second leaf spring are connected at the front end so as to be bendable towards one another and wherein the first leaf spring is connected at the rear end to the first longitudinal slide and the second leaf spring is connected at the rear end to the third linear rail.
Analysis
(L1) The complete Reference 1, Reference 2 and Reference 3 combination and analysis of claim 4 are incorporated. (L2) In Reference 2, the adjacent elastic elements 332 and 333 join at first connection element 331 at one longitudinal end. Their opposite ends connect separately to second section 32 and the wall of opening 311 in first section 31 (paragraph [0023], Figure 5; claim 5). The intervening space permits the elastic elements to bend toward one another as the connected sections move transversely; the connection does not weld the leaves together along their lengths. In the proposed installation, the joined end is the front end, second section 32 connects the rear of first elastic element 332 to Reference 1's first longitudinal support Cc, and first section 31 connects the rear of second elastic element 333 to guide beam Cd. The latter connection includes the inherited series rotational flexure; no direct-only rear connection is required by the claim. This specifies the separate rear attachment paths and common front connection rather than relying merely on the word flexure.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to attach Reference 2's separate section 32 and section 31 ends to the first longitudinal support and the guide beam, respectively, while retaining its common folded end and Reference 3's rotational accommodation, because those are the two members whose relative displacement Reference 1's first guide must accommodate. The separate rear connections transmit the guide load through the connected elastic leaves instead of a rigid bridge across their compliant span. The predictable result is the common-front, separately anchored folded connection that bends transversely without eliminating the frame's required rotation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, Reference 3 and Reference 4.
Claim Text
(L1) Device according to claim 4, (L2) wherein the first leaf spring and the second leaf spring are made of the same material and are geometrically identical.
Analysis
(L1) The complete Reference 1, Reference 2 and Reference 3 combination and analysis of claim 4 are incorporated, including claim 3's longitudinal-vertical leaf orientation and series rotational flexure. (L2) Reference 4 expressly makes the span elements of its folded flexures from the same spring material and, in the quad array member 30, makes all four standard span elements 22 identical (description of Figures 4B-6 and 8A-8B; claim 5). The ends of adjacent elements A and B, and C and D, are joined by a yoke/idler fastening, while their opposite ends connect to different supported members. The reference distinguishes that identical-element arrangement from its triad arrangement having half-width span elements 24; equal compliance alone is not the asserted geometric identity. Applying the identical geometry and common-material selection to Reference 2's first elastic element 332 and second elastic element 333 provides the added limitation in the inherited parallel-leaf guide. Their installed orientation, common connection and separate attachment paths are retained; the new selection does not replace Reference 1's gantry with Reference 4's reciprocating armature or remove Reference 3's series rotational flexure.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the inherited guide's two connected leaf springs from the same spring material with identical geometry, following Reference 4's identical-element folded-flexure arrangement, to obtain matched compliant spans and economical manufacture using uniform spring elements. Reference 2 already permits selection of the number, arrangement and shape of its modular elastic elements, and Reference 4 expressly explains the uniformity and manufacturing benefits of its spring building blocks. Transferring that material and geometry selection to the existing folded pair makes technical sense because both structures transmit relative motion through connected compliant spans. It predictably supplies matching leaf properties without changing the inherited guide's translational load path or its separately retained rotational accommodation; no numerical stiffness or complete vibration-cancellation performance is assumed.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim Text
(L1) Device according to claim 3, (L2) wherein the first leaf spring is a spring plate.
Analysis
(L1) The complete Reference 1, Reference 2 and Reference 3 combination and analysis of claim 3 are incorporated. (L2) Reference 2's first elastic element 332 is a thin plate-shaped portion of first bending part 33, shown with its length, plate depth and transverse thickness in Figures 4-5 and 7-8 and identified as an elastic bending element in paragraph [0023]. That disclosed shape supplies the spring plate in the selected longitudinal-vertical orientation. No particular material, identical dimensions with another leaf, or numerical stiffness is inferred.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 2's plate-shaped elastic element as the leaf in the inherited combined guide, because bending across the plate thickness supplies the required transverse compliance while its depth supports the vertical load. The plate remains part of the modular folded connection and operates with Reference 3's series rotational flexure, predictably providing the spring-plate guide without changing the intended frame motion.
________________________________________
Response to Amendment and Arguments
The amendment filed September 1, 2026 has been entered. The prior claim-clarity issues are withdrawn in view of the amended terminology and dependencies. Applicant's arguments concerning the prior-art grounds have been fully considered but are not persuasive as to claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 11 for the reasons below.
Applicant argues that Reference 1 uses a three-point kinematic support with compliance at only one side and a rigid master guide at the other, rather than cooperative first and second spring guides. The maintained rejection of claim 1, however, is anticipation by Reference 1's Figure 3 embodiment, not a reconstruction from the former multi-reference ground. In that same embodiment, flexure joint G2' connects guide beam Cd to longitudinal beam Cc and permits transverse translation and vertical-axis rotation, while flexure joint G1 connects guide beam Cd to longitudinal beam Ca and permits vertical-axis rotation. Both joints block vertical translation. Claim 1 does not require identical compliance at both guide elements and does not exclude the disclosed three-point support, so the cited arrangement meets the separately recited properties of the first and second spring structures.
Applicant's rail-connection argument is also not persuasive. Claim 1 does not require a direct rail-to-rail attachment that excludes the movable longitudinal supports. Claim 5 expressly places a rear connection of the first leaf spring at the first longitudinal slide, and substitute-specification paragraphs [0030], [0037], and [0044] preserve the guide-to-slide and cross-slide interfaces. Under that supported reading, Reference 1's connections from guide beam Cd through G2' and G1 to longitudinal beams Cc and Ca satisfy the claimed connections through the movable supports.
Applicant argues that Reference 2 concerns a folded flexure for a voice-coil actuator and Reference 3 concerns a separate rotary pivot, and that their use would impair Reference 1's master-guide principle. The rejection does not substitute either reference's entire apparatus for Reference 1's gantry. Reference 2 is used for its plate-shaped, connected folded elastic elements 332 and 333 and their separate section attachments. Reference 3 expressly teaches supporting a gantry member by combining transverse movement with vertical-axis rotation. Installing Reference 2's folded-leaf translation module at G2' while retaining Reference 3's rotational flexure in series preserves the in-plane degrees of freedom required by Reference 1 and leaves G1's master-guide function intact. The combination therefore is technically compatible and predictably provides the leaf geometry and connection relationships of claims 3-5 and the spring plate of claim 11.
Applicant's argument regarding Reference 4 does not overcome claim 7. Reference 4 is relied upon only for the disclosed choice to make the standard span elements of a folded-flexure array from the same spring material and with identical geometry. Applying that manufacturing and matching choice to the already combined parallel leaves does not import Reference 4's reciprocating-armature apparatus or alter the inherited gantry kinematics. It predictably supplies the same-material and geometrically-identical limitation.
Applicant's arguments concerning the opposing rear stops of claim 6, the continuous-gap and end-spring relationship of claim 9, the angled stop of claim 10, and the vertically sliding stop/support-shoulder relationship of claim 12 are persuasive on the completed record. Those claims are treated as allowable below and those asserted distinctions are not used to sustain a rejection. Applicant's separate argument that new claim 11 lacks a spring plate is not persuasive because Reference 2's first elastic element 332 is expressly a thin plate-shaped bending element, as mapped in the claim 11 analysis.
________________________________________
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9, 10 and 12 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.
________________________________________
Finality of Action
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
_______________________________________
Conclusion
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 11 are rejected on the grounds set forth above. Claims 2 and 8 are canceled. Claims 6, 9, 10, and 12 are objected.
________________________________________
Art Considered but Not Applied
US 2016/0066432 A1 was compared for single-web beam-end mounts; those mounts do not supply the connected parallel leaves in the applied combination.
US 5,874,820 A was compared for crossed spring plates. Its crossed-strip arrangement does not supply the complete claimed orthogonal end-of-gap and sliding-shoulder stop relationships.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Joseph Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights