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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in response to the prior Office action have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Pharand et al. (U.S. 2025/0118602 A1) in view of Kim (U.S. 2023/0230866 A1).
The prior Office action identified the relevant common technology of electromagnetic carrier transport, magnetic position sensing, and feedback control. Pharand discloses a planar-motor system in which individually energized coils control carrier movement, and Kim discloses Hall-sensor-based detection of a moving-magnet armature. These teachings provide a reasonable basis for considering the references together for carrier-position monitoring. Upon further consideration of Applicant’s arguments and the particular limitations of the claims, however, the Examiner agrees that the applied combination does not establish the specific sensing arrangement and measurement operations recited in independent claims 1 and 11.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant persuasively distinguishes the physical arrangement and function of Pharand’s electromagnetic coils 115 and Hall-effect sensors 116 from the claimed sensing arrangement. Pharand discloses electromagnetic coils 115 beneath horizontal surface 111, which interact with permanent magnets 125 to levitate and move carriers 121 and 122 above the horizontal surface. The coils are used to generate the forces required for carrier transport. Pharand separately discloses Hall-effect sensors 116 that detect carrier proximity based on interaction with the carrier magnets. Thus, the disclosed actuator coils and position sensors perform related but distinct functions. See Pharand, paragraphs [0054] and [0056].
The Examiner agrees that the presence of an energized electromagnetic coil and a separate Hall-effect sensor does not, without more, establish the claimed operation of detecting a magnetic field generated by a sensing electromagnet and correlating the detected field strength with the size of a gap between a membrane and a carrier disposed underneath the membrane. The cited disclosure of Pharand does not identify the actuator-generated field as the field measured by the Hall-effect sensors for that purpose. Further, paragraph [0057] concerns interferometer-based planar-alignment measurement and correction of substrate tilt. Although that disclosure supports position-related control of the carrier, it does not establish the particular magnetic gap-measurement operation recited in claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments concerning Kim are also persuasive. Kim discloses sensor units 30 associated with the motor coils of stator 20. The Hall sensors detect approach or passage of armature 10 and sense magnetic flux associated with the armature’s permanent magnets. The resulting signals are used to determine armature position and generate motor-commutation information. See Kim, paragraphs [0036]–[0040]. Kim therefore provides a known magnetic position-sensing technique, but the cited disclosure does not establish a sensor electromagnet whose generated field is measured to determine the membrane-to-carrier gap required by claim 1.
The Examiner further agrees that Kim’s carrier-monitoring unit 410 does not cure this distinction. The monitoring unit includes sensors for parameters such as speed, pressure, temperature, inclination, and vibration. Those measurements may be useful for monitoring carrier condition, but they do not establish the claimed first and second electromagnet-generated magnetic-field measurements. See Kim, paragraphs [0044] and [0059].
The prior Office action’s rationale of improving position monitoring and diagnostic capability remains relevant to the general desirability of magnetic sensing in a carrier-transport system. However, the Examiner agrees that the stated rationale does not sufficiently account for the additional modification required to arrive at the claimed arrangement: first and second sensor arrays above a membrane, a carrier underneath the membrane, and respective sensing electromagnets whose generated magnetic-field strengths are detected in relation to the membrane-to-carrier gap. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are persuasive that the applied combination, as relied upon in the prior Office action, does not establish the method of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant persuasively distinguishes the claimed magnetic-field measurement and distance-output operations from the position-sensing arrangements of Pharand and Kim. Pharand’s Hall-effect sensors provide carrier-position information based on the carrier magnets, while Kim’s Hall sensors provide armature-position and commutation information based on magnetic interaction with the moving armature. See Pharand, paragraph [0056]; Kim, paragraphs [0036]–[0040].
The Examiner agrees that these disclosures do not establish the particular sequence of supplying current to a sensing electromagnet, detecting a component of the magnetic field generated by that electromagnet using first and second sensor elements, generating a voltage signal based on the detected component, and outputting the membrane-to-carrier distance indexed to the voltage signal. The fact that a Hall sensor produces an electrical signal representative of magnetic-field information does not, by itself, establish the claimed relationship between the electromagnet-generated field, the detected component, and the indexed distance output.
The Examiner further agrees that the prior Office action’s rationale of improving precision monitoring and control does not sufficiently explain how the applied teachings would be modified to provide that particular measurement sequence. The proposed combination would provide magnetic position information, but the cited disclosures do not establish the additional sensing and conversion operations required by claim 11. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are persuasive with respect to independent claim 11.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6-8 & 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the expressions “one more,” “an first,” and “an second” are grammatically improper. The expressions should be corrected to “one or more,” “a first,” and “a second,” respectively, as appropriate. Claim 1 also contains inconsistent singular and plural references to the sensors and omits the definite article in the phrase “reducing the first current to first electromagnet.” The latter phrase should be corrected to “reducing the first current to the first electromagnet.” The applicant is requested to review the corresponding sensor and electromagnet references throughout claim 1 for consistency.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “moving the carrier levitated below the membrane a third position along the second axial direction” is grammatically incomplete. The phrase should be corrected to recite “moving the carrier levitated below the membrane to a third position along the second axial direction.”
Regarding claims 7 & 8, the expressions “one more” and “an second array of sensor” are grammatically improper and should be corrected to “one or more” and “a second array of sensors,” respectively. The applicant is also requested to review the singular and plural references to the sensors and arrays for consistency with claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase “the first sensor” lacks a corresponding antecedent in claim 11, which introduces “a sensor.” The applicant is requested to clarify whether “the first sensor” refers to the sensor of claim 11 or to a separately introduced sensor. If the former is intended, the phrase may be corrected to “the sensor.”
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 10 & 17 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.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “The magnetic sensor of claim 8, wherein the alternating current is between about 1 kHz and about 3 kHz.”
The phrase “The magnetic sensor of claim 8” is unclear because claim 8 is directed to a method, whereas claim 10 identifies the claimed subject matter as a magnetic sensor. Consequently, it is unclear whether claim 10 is intended to further limit the method of claim 8 or to define a magnetic sensor as an apparatus.
Claim 10 further recites “the alternating current,” but claim 8, and independent claim 1 from which claim 8 depends, do not expressly require either the first current or the second current to be an alternating current. Thus, the claim does not clearly identify which current is required to have the recited frequency of between about 1 kHz and about 3 kHz.
Accordingly, the scope of claim 10 is unclear because the claim does not distinctly identify the statutory subject matter being claimed or the current to which the frequency limitation applies. The applicant is required to clarify the intended dependency and the current being further limited.
If the applicant intends to further limit the alternating current recited in claim 9, an appropriate correction would be:
“The method of claim 9, wherein the alternating current is between about 1 kHz and about 3 kHz.”
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites “The method of claim 16, further comprising adjusting the first current supplied to the electromagnet is adjusted based on the first component of the magnetic flux density detected by the first sensor element and the second sensor element.”
The phrase “further comprising adjusting the first current supplied to the electromagnet is adjusted based on” contains the inconsistent predicates “adjusting” and “is adjusted.” As written, the clause does not clearly set forth the method step required by the “further comprising” limitation. In particular, the claim does not distinctly state whether the applicant intends to recite an additional step of adjusting the first current or to describe a condition of the first current.
Accordingly, the scope of claim 17 is unclear because the required adjustment operation is not distinctly recited. The applicant is required to clarify the intended method step.
An appropriate correction, if consistent with the applicant’s intended scope, would be:
“The method of claim 16, further comprising adjusting the first current supplied to the electromagnet based on the first component of the magnetic flux density detected by the first sensor element and the second sensor element.”
The governing examination standard requires the Office Action to identify the particular language and explain why its scope is unclear.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record has been considered. The prior art of record, including Pharand et al. (U.S. 2025/0118602 A1) and Kim (U.S. 2023/0230866 A1), does not teach or suggest the particular combinations of limitations recited in independent claims 1 and 11, as discussed below.
Regarding claim 1: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed arrangement in which first and second sensor arrays are disposed above a membrane and monitor a carrier disposed underneath the membrane at respective first and second positions, together with the recited sequence of supplying current to a first sensing electromagnet, detecting a first magnetic field strength that varies with the membrane-to-carrier gap, moving the carrier, reducing the first current, and supplying current to a second sensing electromagnet to detect a second magnetic field strength that varies with the gap at the second position. The prior art of record does not establish this combination of spatial arrangement, electromagnet-generated magnetic-field measurement, and sequential sensor operation. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter of claim 1 is considered to distinguish over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 11: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed combination of actuating linear stators to levitate a carrier underneath a membrane and a sensor including an electromagnet, a first sensor element, and a second sensor element; supplying current to the electromagnet to generate a magnetic field; detecting a component of the magnetic flux density of that field using the first and second sensor elements; generating a voltage signal based on the detected component; and outputting the membrane-to-carrier distance indexed to the voltage signal. The prior art of record does not establish this particular relationship between the energized sensing electromagnet, the detected magnetic-field component, and the indexed distance output in the recited carrier-control arrangement. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter of claim 11 is considered to distinguish over the prior art of record.
Claims 2-10 &12–20 depend from claims 1 & 11 and include all of the limitations thereof. The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 1 & 11 together with the additional limitations recited in these dependent claims. Note: See the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
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."
During an extensive search (see PE2E attached), the Examiner reviewed the following additional references relevant to the applicant's disclosure. However, these references do not anticipate the claims, nor do they, in combination, render the previously allowable limitations of claims 1-20 obvious.
U.S. 2021/0354934 A1 to Aust et al. disclose a magnetic levitation system for contactlessly holding and moving a carrier in a vacuum chamber, including a base defining a transportation track, a carrier movable above the base along the transportation track, and at least one magnetic bearing for generating a magnetic levitation force between the base and the carrier. The at least one magnetic bearing includes a first magnet unit arranged at the base and a second magnet unit arranged at the carrier. The magnetic levitation system further includes a magnetic side stabilization device for stabilizing the carrier in a lateral direction, the magnetic side stabilization device comprising a stabilization magnet unit arranged at the base, wherein at least one of the first magnet unit and the first stabilization magnet unit is arranged in a housing space of the base, the housing space being separated from an inner volume of the vacuum chamber by a separation wall.
U.S. 2022/0214410 A1 to Romero discloses a magnetic-field sensor includes main coil circuitry configured to generate a first magnetic field signal at a first frequency. A reflected signal is generated from a target caused by the first signal generated by the main coil circuitry. The magnetic field sensor also includes magnetoresistance circuitry configured to receive an error signal. The error signal is formed from a combination of the reflected signal and a second magnetic field signal. The magnetic-field sensor further includes analog circuitry configured to receive an output signal from the magnetoresistance circuitry, digital circuitry configured to receive an output signal from the analog circuitry, feedback circuitry configured to receive a feedback signal from one of the digital circuitry or the analog circuitry, and secondary coil circuitry configured to receive a driver signal from the feedback circuitry causing the secondary coil circuitry to generate the second magnetic field signal at the first frequency.
U.S. 2019/0049530 A1 to Latham et al. disclose a magnetic field sensor for sensing external magnetic fields on multiple axes comprises a coil structure and a gain equalization circuit. The coil structure generates reference fields on magnetic field sensing elements in each axis. The gain equalization circuit measures and compares reference fields to generate gain-equalized output signals responsive to the external magnetic fields.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUNG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1966. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon- Friday 8AM - 4:00PM Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached on 571-272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Examiner: /Trung Q. Nguyen/- Art 2858
/GIOVANNI ASTACIO-OQUENDO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 9/11/2026
Prosecution Insights