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 Group I (claims 1-5, 9, 10, 13, and 18) in the reply filed on 06/01/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Group I-III inventions are not lack of unity. This is not found persuasive because the common features of these invention groups are taught in view of prior references, with details set forth in this action.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 9, Lines13-14: Fig. 4C is described as “schematic side-views of even further or other embodiments of a z-position motion stage”. However, Fig. 4C is a method step flow chart.
Page 16, Line 21: “In a preferred embodiment, e.g. as shown in FIGs 2B, the first force balancing means 60 is positioned from the stationary or neutral center N at a distance d2”; this is a description of Fig. 2A.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2005/0028583 A1 [hereinafter Su].
PNG
media_image1.png
640
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1:
Su teaches a z-position motion stage for use in a scanning probe microscopy system (Figs. 4/5/9: an atomic force microscope (AFM), including a probe assembly mounted on a probe holder) comprising:
a scanner body (Figs. 4/5- probe holder 60); and
a driving dither (Figs. 4/5- piezoelectric actuator 80) provided along a first terminal end face of the scanner body at a position near a first edge thereof, that is configured to impart a first oscillation for driving a cantilever of a probe associated to the driving dither in an oscillating motion, thereby exciting a resonance mode of said cantilever of said probe, (Figs. 4/5 and paras. [0068-0069]: piezoelectric actuator 80, similar to piezoelectric actuator 62 in Fig. 3 (which is a one-actuator embodiment), is typically a vertical actuator that oscillates the probe 74 into flexural motion. When driven in this fashion, the tip 76 of probe 74 will tap on the surface of the sample under test);
wherein the stage further comprises at least a first force balancing means ((Figs. 4/5- a balancing component includes piezoelectric actuator 82), acting onto the scanner body at a position opposite the driving dither across a stationary or neutral center of the motion stage, said stationary or neutral center of the motion stage being a neutral bending plane (N) along a longitudinal axis ((Figs. 4/5- C-axis) of the scanner body, and wherein the force balancing means comprises at least a first balance dither configured to oscillate in harmony with the driving dither (para. [0069]: “a pair of piezoelectric elements 80, 82, such as piezo stack actuators mounted generally symmetrically about the center of the probe holder 60… when driving actuators 80, 82 with signals i1 and i2 of generally equal amplitude but opposite phase, a tip 76 of probe 74 of probe chip 72 moves laterally as the system attempts to achieve oscillation of the probe 74 at a torsional resonance of the probe”).
Regarding Claim 2:
Su teaches the motion stage of claim 1. Su further teaches wherein the first force balancing means is positioned relative to the driving dither so that, in use, a net resultant force induced in a direction along the first terminal end face at least partly cancels out a net resultant force induced by the driving dither (Figs. 4/5/9 and paras. [0038, 0069, 0079]: “when driving actuators 80, 82 with signals i1 and i2 of generally equal amplitude but opposite phase, a tip 76 of probe 74 of probe chip 72 moves laterally as the system attempts to achieve oscillation of the probe 74 at a torsional resonance of the probe.” The SPM system further includes a balance control block 166 as shown in Fig. 9, which “control the output of mode control unit 162 so that drive signals having appropriate amplitudes, namely “Piezo Drive 1 and “Piezo Drive 2”, and allow “applying first and second drive signals to the first and second actuators …[and] selecting the amplitudes of the first and second drive signals having opposite phase automatically”).
Regarding Claim 3:
Su teaches the motion stage of claim 1. Su further teaches wherein the first force balancing means is provided along the first terminal end face of the scanner body at a position near a second edge thereof (see annotated Fig. 4 above).
Regarding Claim 5:
Su teaches the motion stage of claim 1. Su further teaches wherein the first force balancing means is oriented mirror-symmetrically to the driving dither across the stationary or neutral center (Figs.4/5 and para. [0069]: “a pair of piezoelectric elements 80, 82… mounted generally symmetrically about the center of the probe holder 60”).
Regarding Claim 10:
Su teaches a scanning probe microscopy system comprising a z-position motion stage according to claim 1 and a mount for reversibly associating the z- position motion stage to a metro frame of the scanning probe microscopy system (Fig. 9 shows an AFM 150 system includes probe assembly 152 and piezo drive 1/2 for driving the actuators of the probe assembly. Although Su does not expressly teach a “metro frame,” because Su’s AFM system operates the probe assembly relative to a sample using controlled piezo drives and feedback, the probe assembly necessarily must be mechanically mounted to a stable AFM support/head/frame or alike).
Regarding Claim 13:
Su teaches a method of operating a scanning probe microscopy system according to claim 10, comprising:
associating a probe to the z-position motion stage (para. [0031]: “using a probe having a cantilever,” the probe is associated with a probe assembly including base portion, probe holder, cantilever, tip and actuator, as shown in figs 4/5/9)
driving the driving dither at a target driving frequency associated with a target resonance mode of a cantilever of the probe (para. [0037]: “oscillating a tip of a probe with an actuator at a torsional resonance frequency of the probe”), and
operating the first force balancing means at least when the driving dither is driven at a frequency associated with a resonance mode of the scanner body (para. [0038]: “applying first and second drive signals to the first and second actuators …[and] selecting the amplitudes of the first and second drive signals having opposite phase automatically”).
Regarding Claim 18:
Su teaches a method of operating a z-position motion stage according to claim 1 (para. [0037]: “a method of operating a scanning probe microscope” by applying driving signals to the actuators of the probe assembly to control the movement of the probe holder) comprising: associating a probe to the z-position motion stage, driving the driving dither at a target driving frequency associated with a target resonance mode of a cantilever of the probe, and operating the first force balancing means at least when the driving dither is driven at a frequency associated with a resonance mode of the scanner body, as discussed in claim 13.
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.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of US 20190267915A1 [hereinafter Peirs].
Regarding Claim 4:
Su teaches the motion stage of claim 1. However, Su does not specifically note that wherein the first force balancing means comprises a plurality of separated balance dithers distributed in an arrangement as to jointly at least partly cancel out the net resultant force induced by the driving dither.
Peirs teaches wherein the first force balancing means comprises a plurality of separated balance dithers distributed in an arrangement (paras. [0019, 0052]: a piezo motor which “may comprise a plurality of piezo actuators for driving the same load, the plurality of piezo actuators being positioned adjacent to each other.
As such, in the combined references, the first/second piezo actuators taught in Su can be configured to multiple piezo actuators as taught in Peirs, to jointly cancel out the net resultant force induced by the second/first piezo actuator.
Su teaches a SPM probe oscillates at a resonance frequency by operating a pair of piezo actuators. Peirs teaches a piezo motor includes a plurality of piezo actuators to drive the same load. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to implement Su’s single balancing actuator as multiple separated piezo actuators acting together, because doing so would provide the same balancing activation while allowing the balancing force to be more evenly distributed and adjusted over multiple actuator locations.
Regarding Claim 9:
Su teaches the motion stage according to claim 1. However, Su does not teach wherein the first and/or second force balancing means comprise a mount for holding a balancing load.
Peirs teaches wherein the first and/or second force balancing means comprise a mount for holding a balancing load (Fig.1 and para. [0104]: the actuator shown in Fig. 1 has four corners, a contact tip 2 is mounted on at least one corner and a balancing mass can be mounted to the opposite corner).
Su teaches a SPM probe oscillates at a resonance frequency by operating a pair of actuators. Peirs teaches using a balancing mass to balance the actuator. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to provide the balancing actuator of Su with an attached balancing mass/load as taught by Peirs, to tune the balancing effect and reduce momentum/reaction-force transfer to the probe, thereby improving vibration suppression during high-speed AFM/SPM operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights