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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a locking mechanism in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Amin-Shahidi (2012/0140198).
Regarding claim 1, Amin-Shahidi discloses a patterning device transport system (200, 400, 800, 1000, Fig. 2, 4, 8, 10, para 0053-0055) for use in holding and moving a patterning device (MA, 270, Fig. 2, 1070, Fig. 10, para 0088), in a lithographic imaging apparatus (Fig. 1A, 1B), the patterning device transport system comprising: patterning device holder (Fig. 2, 10) including a chuck (280, 1080) configured to releasably hold and support the patterning device (para 0032, para 0054); an actuator (1060, para 0088) configured to apply a holding force to an edge of the patterning device (para 0089), the holding force being opposed to an inertial force on the patterning device in response to acceleration of the patterning device holder (para 0055, 0090, normal push force at the edge opposite to the direction of acceleration to reduce or eliminate slippage), the actuator including a fine-stroke portion (1063, Fig. 10, para 0091, 0093) and a tip portion (tip of 1063), wherein the actuator is slidingly mounted on a guide (proximal end 1068 is clamped by claiming device 1065 and guides the direction of the tip portion of 1063); and a locking mechanism (clamping device 1065) configured to selectively hold the actuator in place relative to the patterning device (para 0091), wherein the actuator is configured to controllably position the tip portion to a pushing position in which the tip portion is engaged with the edge of the patterning device and to a disengaged position in which the tip portion is not engaged with the edge of the patterning device (Fig. 10, para 1092), and wherein the actuator and the guide are configured to provide relative movement between the actuator and the guide from the disengaged position to the pushing position (Fig. 8, para 0083, 0084 describes relative movement, also para 0092).
Regarding claim 15, Amin-Shanhidi discloses a method of controlling a patterning device transport system (200, 400, 800, 1000, Fig. 2, 4, 8, 10, para 0053-0055), the method comprising: accelerating a patterning device holder in a scan direction to controllably provide relative motion between an actuator (1060, para 0088) and a patterning device (MA, 270, Fig. 2, 1070, Fig. 10, para 0088) held by the patterning device holder from a disengaged position in which a tip portion (tip of 1063, Fig. 10) of the actuator is not in contact with an edge of the patterning device to an engaged position in which the tip portion of the actuator is in contact with the edge of the patterning device (Fig. 8, 10, para 0083, 0084, 0089, 0092); locking the actuator in position relative to the patterning device in response to inertial relative movement of the actuator (para 0055, 0090, 0091); and applying a holding force with the actuator on the patterning device in a direction opposed to a direction of acceleration of the patterning device holder (para 0055, 0090, normal push force at the edge opposite to the direction of acceleration to reduce or eliminate slippage).
Claim(s) 1 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zordan (2011/0194094).
Regarding claim 1, Zordan discloses a patterning device transport system (Fig. 2) for use in holding and moving a patterning device (MA) in a lithographic imaging apparatus (Fig. 1, para 0017), the patterning device transport system comprising: a patterning device holder (MT, 10, Fig. 2, para 0039) the patterning device holder including a chuck (10) configured to releasably hold and support the patterning device (para 0039-0041); an actuator (16, 18) configured to apply a holding force to an edge of the patterning device, the holding force being opposed to an inertial force on the patterning device in response to acceleration of the patterning device holder (para 0049, 0056, 0057, 0061), the actuator including a fine-stroke portion (18, Fig. 2-6, para 0042, 0043) and a tip portion (48, Fig. 6, para 0046, 0049), wherein the actuator is slidingly mounted on a guide (46, Fig. 6); and a locking mechanism (32, Fig. 5) configured to selectively hold the actuator in place relative to the patterning device (para 0047, 0050), wherein the actuator is configured to controllably position the tip portion to a pushing position in which the tip portion is engaged with the edge of the patterning device and to a disengaged position in which the tip portion is not engaged with the edge of the patterning device (Fig. 3-6, para 0046, 0047), and wherein the actuator and the guide are configured to provide relative movement between the actuator and the guide from the disengaged position to the pushing position (para 0046, 0048-0050, the tip moves relative to the guide 46).
Regarding claim 15, Zordan discloses a method of controlling a patterning device transport system (Fig. 2), the method comprising: accelerating a patterning device holder (MT, 10, Fig. 1, 2) in a scan direction to controllably provide relative motion between an actuator (16, 18, Fig. 2-5, para 0042) and a patterning device (MA) held by the patterning device holder from a disengaged position in which a tip portion (48, Fig. 6) of the actuator is not in contact with an edge of the patterning device to an engaged position in which the tip portion of the actuator is in contact with the edge of the patterning device (Fig. 3-5, para 0046, 0047); locking the actuator in position relative to the patterning device in response to inertial relative movement of the actuator (32, Fig. 5, para 0047, 0050); and applying a holding force with the actuator on the patterning device in a direction opposed to a direction of acceleration of the patterning device holder (para 0049, 0056, 0057, 0061).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amin-Shahidi in view of Jacobs et al. (Jacobs) (2007/0188724).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Amin-Shahidi does not disclose wherein the locking mechanism comprises at least one piezoelectric brake configured to apply a force on a side of the actuator in a direction substantially perpendicular to a direction of extension of the guide. Jacobs discloses an actuator (LM) to apply a holding force to an edge of the patterning device (MA, Fig. 8A) and discloses a Lorentz motor brake configured to apply a force on a side of the actuator in a direction substantially perpendicular to a direction of extension of the guide (para 0058). Jacobs also discloses in para 0054, that the actuators maybe a Lorentz motor or alternatively a piezoelectric actuator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide at least one piezoelectric brake to the invention of Amin-Shahidi in order to provide a flexibility in holding the actuator in place when necessary.
Claim(s) 3 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amin-Shahidi in view of Mori et al. (Mori) (JP 2010-113296, machine translation provided with Office Action, page numbers refer to the translation).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Amin-Shahidi does not disclose wherein the fine-stroke portion includes a strain gauge, and the strain gauge is operable to provide a signal to a controller in response to the tip portion engaging the edge of the patterning device. Mori discloses a patterning device (2) holder (20) with reference pin and misalignment prevention pin (61, 66) with a sensor (64) to detect that the pin is in contact with the edge of the patterning device (Fig. 16, pages 6, 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a strain gauge to the invention of Amin-Shahidi in order to notify when the tip portion contacts the edge of the patterning device and to use the gauge information to send a signal for the fine stroke portion for more precise movement.
Claim(s) 3 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zordan (2011/0194094) in view of Mori et al. (Mori) (JP 2010-113296, machine translation provided with Office Action, page numbers refer to the translation).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Zordan does not disclose wherein the fine-stroke portion includes a strain gauge, and the strain gauge is operable to provide a signal to a controller in response to the tip portion engaging the edge of the patterning device. Mori discloses a patterning device (2) holder (20) with reference pin and misalignment prevention pin (61, 66) with a sensor (64) to detect that the pin is in contact with the edge of the patterning device (Fig. 16, pages 6, 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a strain gauge to the invention of Zordan in order to notify when the tip portion contacts the edge of the patterning device and to use the gauge information to send a signal for the fine stroke portion for more precise movement.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amin-Shahidi in view of Jacobs et al. (Jacobs) (2007/0188724) and Ni et al. (Ni) (CN 107554503, machine translation provided with Office Action, page numbers refer to the translation).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Amin-Shahidi does not disclose wherein the locking mechanism comprises only one piezoelectric brake configured to apply a force on a side of the actuator in a direction substantially perpendicular to a direction of extension of the guide; and wherein the brake further comprises a floating caliper, the floating caliper configured and arranged to apply the force on the side of the actuator when a piezoelectric element of the piezoelectric brake is actuated. Jacobs discloses an actuator (LM) to apply a holding force to an edge of the patterning device (MA, Fig. 8A) and discloses a Lorentz motor brake configured to apply a force on a side of the actuator in a direction substantially perpendicular to a direction of extension of the guide (para 0058). Jacobs also discloses in para 0054, that the actuators maybe a Lorentz motor or alternatively a piezoelectric actuator. Ni discloses a piezoelectric driven brake comprising a floating caliper (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide at least one piezoelectric brake to the invention of Amin-Shahidi in order to provide a flexibility in holding the actuator in place when necessary, and to provide a floating caliper to provide friction for braking as taught by Ni.
Regarding claims 5 and 19, although Amin-Shahidi in view of Jacobs and Ni does not disclose wherein the piezoelectric element of the piezoelectric brake is in a locked configuration when no voltage is applied to the piezoelectric element, such design is obvious and well-known design option for piezoelectric breaks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide wherein the piezoelectric element of the piezoelectric brake is in a locked configuration when no voltage is applied to the piezoelectric element to hold the actuator in place as a default setting.
Claim(s) 8-11, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zordan (2011/0194094) in view of Korenaga et al. (Korenaga) (6,172,738).
Regarding claim 8, Zordan discloses a patterning device transport system (Fig. 2) for use in holding and moving a patterning device (MA) in a lithographic imaging apparatus (Fig. 1, para 0017), the patterning device transport system comprising: a patterning device holder (MT, 10, Fig. 2, para 0039) the patterning device holder including a chuck (10) configured to releasably hold and support the patterning device (para 0039-0041); an actuator (16, 18) configured to apply a holding force to an edge of the patterning device, the holding force being opposed to an inertial force on the patterning device in response to acceleration of the patterning device holder (para 0049, 0056, 0057, 0061), wherein the actuator comprises: a long-stroke actuator (16, para 0043); a brake (32, Fig. 5) configured to prevent parasitic forces from moving the long-stroke actuator portion (para 0047, 0050); a short-stroke actuator portion (18) connected to the long-stroke actuator portion (Fig. 2-5, para 0042-0044); and a tip portion (48) configured to apply the holding force to the edge of the patterning device (para 0046), wherein the long-stroke actuator portion has a longer travel stroke than a travel stroke of the short-stroke actuator portion and the short-stroke actuator portion has a greater degree of precision than a degree of precision of the long-stroke actuator portion (para 0043, 0044, 0055, 0056) and wherein the long-stroke actuator portion is configured to controllably move the tip portion towards and away from the edge of the patterning device such that the tip is configured to be controllably positioned to a pushing position in which the tip portion is engaged with the edge of the patterning device and to a disengaged position in which the tip portion is not engaged with the edge of the patterning device (para 0046, 0048, 0049, 0058, 0059). However, Zordan does not disclose that the long stroke actuator comprises a linear eccentric drive. Korenaga discloses a patterning device (101) holder (Fig. 12) comprising a linear eccentric drive to press the reticle (col. 13, lines 43-46). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the eccentric drive of Korenaga to the invention of Zordan since a linear eccentric drive is an obvious and well-known solution for driving a linear actuator for high precision and faster acceleration.
Regarding claim 9, Zordan does not disclose wherein the long-stroke actuator portion comprises a motor having an off-axis shaft to convert rotational motion to linear motion in cooperation with a linear guide member. Korenaga discloses eccentric drive (col. 13, lines 43-46). Although Korenaga does not disclose explicitly wherein the long-stroke actuator portion comprises a motor having an off-axis shaft to convert rotational motion to linear motion in cooperation with a linear guide member, an off-axis shaft to convert rotational motion to linear motion in cooperation with a linear guide member is an implicit feature of the linear eccentric drive. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an off-axis shaft to convert rotational motion to linear motion in cooperation with a linear guide member to the invention of Zordan for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 10, although Zordan does not disclose wherein: the actuator is mounted on the patterning device holder via a linear motion guide; the linear motion guide comprises a flexure mount; and the motor is a servo motor or a brushless DC motor, Zordan discloses the actuator mounted on linear motion guide (Fig. 2-6) and the linear motion guide comprising a spring (44, para 0056). Also, although Zordan does not disclose a servor motor or a brushless DC motor, such motors are well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a flexure such as a leaf spring to ensure that vibration from the operation of the actuator is limited and to provide a servor motor or a brushless DC motor since such motors are well known and selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended is a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 11, Zordan discloses wherein the short-stroke actuator portion comprises a piezoelectric actuator (46, Fig. 6, para 0056).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, although Zordan does not disclose wherein the tip portion comprises a material different from a material of the short-stroke actuator portion or wherein the tip portion comprises a borosilicate glass material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a material different from a material of the short-stroke for the tip portion so that the material of the tip, which engages the patterning device, does not damage the patterning device, and to provide the tip portion comprising a borosilicate glass material since the material if well known in the art and 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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zordan in view of Korenaga et al. as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Amin-Shahidi.
Regarding claim 12, the further difference between the modified Zordan and the claimed invention is wherein the tip portion has a rounded face on a side that engages the edge of the patterning device. Amin-Shahidi discloses an actuator (1060, para 0088) configured to apply a holding force to an edge of the patterning device (1070) wherein the actuator includes a tip portion which has a rounded face (Fig. 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a rounded face at the tip of actuator (48) of Zordan in order to minimize the contact surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7 and 20 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.
Regarding claims 6 and 20, none of the prior art of record teaches or discloses wherein the floating caliper is mounted on a mount providing a single linear degree of freedom in a direction parallel to a direction of the force applied to the side of the actuator in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims.
Amin-Shahidi does not disclose a piezoelectric brake comprising a floating caliper. Ni discloses a piezoelectric brake comprising a floating caliper, but does not disclose a mount and the arrangement of the floating caliper as claimed.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yoshimoto (JP 2002-343850, machine translation provided with Office Action) discloses a patterning device (R) holder (Fig. 6) comprising actuators (16 and 17) to prevent oppose inertial force (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER B KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 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, Toan Ton can be reached at (571) 272-2303. 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.
/PETER B KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 December 13, 2025