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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 objected to because of the following minor grammatical informalities: claim recites “a predetermined stroked length” when it should be “a predetermined stroke length”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 9 and 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the guiding system" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the frame" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this claim will be interpreted as depending from claim 8.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the arrangement of the force adjustment is unclear. Parent claim 1 recites “a force adjustment device adapted to be mounted on the stationary unit;” while dependent claim 20 recites “the force adjustment device is arranged as part of the first assembly of the gravity compensator; and wherein the first assembly is mounted on a first one of the stationary unit and the movable unit”. It is unclear how the force adjustment device can be mounted to the movable unit, as stated in claim 20, when parent claim 1 requires the force adjustment device to be mounted on the stationary unit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 11-14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Weerdt [US 7,126,666] in view of Harbin [CN 110,939,683].
Claim 1, De Weert discloses a passive gravity compensator [col. 3 lines 40-64] for semiconductor equipment [1] that includes a stationary unit [2] and a movable unit [4] adapted to move relative the stationary unit in a Z-direction [figures 2a and 2b], the gravity compensator comprising: a first assembly including a magnet holder [body of 4, figure 9a] and a permanent magnet [4.13, 4.14] fixed to the magnet holder; a second assembly [body of 2, figure 9a] including a yoke [interior wall surfaces of 2; figure 9c] having first and second opposite parts, a first permanent magnet mounted [2.18] against the first opposite part of the yoke, and a second permanent magnet [2.19] mounted against the second opposite part of the yoke, the first and second permanent magnets facing each other [figure 9c], a gap being located between the first and second permanent magnets [figure 9c]; and a force adjustment device [4.18] adapted to be mounted on the stationary unit [2]; wherein a first one of the first and second assemblies is adapted to be mounted on the stationary unit and a second one of the first and second assemblies is adapted to be mounted on the movable unit such that the permanent magnet of the first assembly is movable inside the gap between the first and second permanent magnets of the second assembly [figure 9c]; wherein the force adjustment device is adapted to adjust a relative position between the permanent magnet of the first assembly and the first and second permanent magnets of the second assembly along a direction orthogonal to the Z-direction to adjust a gravity compensation force [col. 4 lines 49-57 and col. 10 lines 8-58] and wherein the force adjustment device is adapted to adjust the relative position between the permanent magnet of the first assembly and the first and second permanent magnets of the second assembly along an X- or Y-direction orthogonal to the Z-direction to adjust the gravity compensation force [col. 4 lines 49-57; col. 11 lines 4-12]
De Weerdt fails to teach that the yoke [2] is a magnetic yoke.
Harbin teaches a positioning device for moving a substrate [abs]in vertical direction, comprising a magnetic yoke [113] with magnets mounted thereon [figure 6; paragraphs 0006-0014].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a magnetic yoke in the passive gravity compensator of De Weert as taught by Harbin in order to direct the magnetic flux of the permanent magnets, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 3, De Weerdt as modified discloses the passive gravity compensator according to claim 1, wherein De Weerdt further discloses the force adjustment device [4.18] includes a guide system [figures 9a-9c] connected to one of the first and second assemblies and an adjustment device adapted to move the first assembly toward or away from the second assembly along the direction orthogonal to the Z-direction [col. 10 lines 26-46].
Claim 6, De Weerdt as modified discloses the passive gravity compensator according to claim 1, wherein De Weerdt further discloses the magnetic yoke [2; figure 9c] includes a rectangular parallelepiped shaped rear part [where 4.18 is located] and two opposite rectangular parallelepiped shaped parts [one with 2.18 the other with 2.19] extending perpendicularly from the rear part, each of the first [2,18] and second [2.19] permanent magnets of the second assembly being mounted on a respective one of two opposite inner sides of the two opposite rectangular parallelepiped shaped parts [figure 9c].
Claim 7, De Weerdt as modified discloses the passive gravity compensator according to claim 1, wherein De Weerdt further discloses the magnetic yoke [2] has an external envelope of rectangular parallelepiped shape and has a U-shaped transverse cross-section that is constant along a displacement direction of the first assembly relative to the second assembly [figures 9b and 9c].
Claim 11, De Weerdt as modified discloses the passive gravity compensator according to claim 1, wherein De Weerdt further discloses that the gravity compensation force is oriented in the Z-direction [4,17/4.18 can compensate in the Z direction; figure 9c].
Claim 12, De Weerdt as modified discloses the passive gravity compensator according to claim 1, with the exception of the gravity compensation force is adjustable in a range between 5 N and 35 N. It would have been an obvious matter of design to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the magnet strength in order to obtain a desired force such as a range between 5 N and 35 N, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 13, De Weerdt as modified discloses the passive gravity compensator according to claim 1, wherein Weerdt further discloses that the gravity compensation force is constant over a predetermined stroked length between the first assembly and the second assembly [obvious in the product structure of figure 9c].
Claim 14, De Weerdt as modified discloses the passive gravity compensator according to claim 1, wherein De Weerdt further discloses the second assembly is mounted to the stationary unit and the movable unit [figures 9c and 9d]. De Weerdt fails to teach that magnetic yoke includes through-holes, each through-hole adapted to receive a mounting screw to affix the second assembly to one of the stationary unit and the movable unit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention attach the second assembly to the stationary unit using screws since it was known mechanical fastening technique in the art.
Claim 16, De Weerdt as modified discloses a semiconductor equipment, comprising: a stationary unit [2]; a movable unit [4] adapted to move relative the stationary unit in a Z-direction; and a gravity compensator as recited in claim 1; wherein De Weerdt further discloses that the force adjustment device is arranged as part of the first assembly of the gravity compensator; and wherein the first assembly is mounted on the stationary unit and the second assembly is mounted on the movable unit such that the permanent magnet of the first assembly is movable inside the gap between the first and second permanent magnets of the second assembly [figure 9c; col. 4 lines 49-57 and col. 10 lines 8-58].
Claim 17, De Weerdt as modified discloses the semiconductor equipment according to claim 16, wherein the semiconductor equipment is arranged as a wafer holder [5].
Claim 18, De Weerdt as modified discloses the semiconductor equipment according to claim 16, wherein De Weerdt further discloses the second assembly is mounted to the stationary unit and the movable unit [figures 9c and 9d]. De Weerdt fails to teach that magnetic yoke includes through-holes, each through-hole adapted to receive a mounting screw to affix the second assembly to one of the stationary unit and the movable unit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention attach the second assembly to the stationary unit using screws since it was known mechanical fastening technique in the art.
Claim 20, De Weerdt as modified discloses the semiconductor equipment, comprising: a stationary unit [2]; a movable unit [4] adapted to move relative the stationary unit in a Z-direction; and a gravity compensator as recited in claim 1; wherein the force adjustment device [4.17] is arranged as part of the first assembly of the gravity compensator; and wherein the first assembly is mounted on a first one of the stationary unit [2; figure 9c] and the movable unit and the second assembly is mounted on a second one of the stationary unit and the movable unit [2] such that the permanent magnet of the first assembly is movable inside the gap between the first and second permanent magnets of the second assembly [figure 9c].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Weerdt [US 7,126,666] in view of Harbin [CN 110,939,683], as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Binnard et al. [US 2003/0034695].
Claim 19, De Weerdt as modified discloses the semiconductor equipment according to claim 16, with the exception of further comprising a linear bearing mounted between the stationary unit and the movable unit and adapted to guide the movable unit relative to the stationary unit along the Z- direction.
Binnard et al. discloses a semiconductor lithography apparatus comprising linear bearings [32] to provide low friction [paragraph 0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the bearings of Binnard et al. in the semiconductor equipment of De Weerdt as modified, as evidenced by De Weerdt, [col. 3 lines 20-24] in order to constrain unwanted movement along a desired degree of freedom while providing low friction linear guide.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of original claim 2 (now incorporated into claim 1) and claims 5-7, 18 and 19 are withdrawn.
Claims 4 and 8, 10, 15 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.
Claims 5 and 9 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/31/2026, with respect to currently amened claims 1 and 3-20 have been fully considered. Therefore a new grounds of rejection has been applied as outlined above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bernard Rojas whose telephone number is (571)272-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. thru Fri. 7:00 am - 4:00 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, Shawki S Ismail can be reached on (571) 272-3985. 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.
/BERNARD ROJAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights