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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 14, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,099,307 in view of Sakamoto [US 5,032,747].
Claims 1 and 3 of the Patent anticipate and are narrower than the claimed subject matter of claims 1 and 7, except that claim 3 of the Patent does not claim that the dimension of the mover pole that is smaller the stator pole is the width of the pole.
Sakamoto teaches that when viewed from the second direction, a width of the at least one mover pole along the second direction is smaller than a width of the at least one stator pole along the second direction (Wr2 is smaller than Ws2, see Figs. 1(a)-1(c) and col. 3 line 46 - col. 4 line 58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the smaller width of the mover pole relative to the width of the stator pole as taught by Sakamoto in the reluctance motor mover pole of the Patent because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that width of pole can influence and reduce the cross-talk between poles and increase positioning accuracy.
Independent claims 14 and 17 of the Patent recite subject matter corresponding to the subject matter to the other Independent claims 12 and 21 of the application and the missing mover pole dimension is obvious based on the same teaching of Sakamoto provided above.
Claims 1-4 and 14 of the Patent recite the subject matter that corresponds to the subject matter is recited in the remaining dependent claims 2-6, 8-11, and 13-20 of the application.
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 1-21 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.
Independent claims 1, 12, and 21 each recite “viewed from the second direction, a width of the at least one mover pole along the second direction is smaller than a width of the at least one stator pole along the second direction.” A width cannot be viewed when the width extends along the direction of viewing. For example, in paragraph [0098] of the specification that describes Fig. 4c, the width of the poles 705 and 715 along the second direction d2 is viewed from a third different direction. For the purposes of examining, the interpretation of the specification is used.
Claims 7 and 16 recite similar subject matter to the above, but are directed to the third direction instead of the second direction. Paragraph [0094] is relied upon for the purposes of examining.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the plurality of stator poles". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examining, the plurality of stator poles are understood to the plurality of stator poles of claim 3.
Claims 10 and 19 recite the limitation "the predetermined movement range". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examining, the predetermined movement range are understood to the predetermined movement range of respective claims 9 and 18.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11-14, 17, 18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsollek [US 2019/0079417] in view of Sakamoto [US 5,032,747].
For claims 1, 12, and 21, Marsollek teaches a lithographic apparatus (see Fig. 1A) comprising:
an optical system (102 and 104) comprising an optical element (202, see [0077]) and an actuator unit (u1-u9, see [0081], [0100] and Figs. 2 and 5a-6) configured to position the optical element, the actuator unit comprising a reluctance actuator (see [0105]) comprising a first stator part (604, see Fig. 6) and a first mover part (602) that are separated by a gap with respect to each other in a first direction (gap in the x direction), the first mover part being configured to move the optical element, and the first stator part being configured to move the first mover part in a second direction that is different from the first direction (movement in the Z direction, see [0083] and Fig. 6), and wherein the optical element of said optical system is constructed and arranged to direct a beam along an optical path (see Fig. 1A).
Marsollek fails to teach the first stator part comprises at least one stator pole, the first mover part comprises at least one mover pole facing the at least one stator pole, and viewed from the second direction, a width of the at least one mover pole along the second direction is smaller than a width of the at least one stator pole along the second direction.
Sakamoto teaches the first stator part comprises at least one stator pole (1-1, see Figs. 1(a)-1(c) and col. 3 line 46 - col. 4 line 58), the first mover part comprises at least one mover pole (3-1) facing the at least one stator pole, and viewed from the second direction, a width of the at least one mover pole along the second direction is smaller than a width of the at least one stator pole along the second direction (Wr2 is smaller than Ws2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the smaller width of the mover pole relative to the width of the stator pole as taught by Sakamoto in the reluctance motor as taught by Marsollek in order to reduce the cross-talk between poles and increase positioning accuracy.
For claim 2, Marsollek teaches the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction (z axis orthogonal to the x and y axis, see Fig. 6).
For claims 3-5, 13, and 14, in the combination of Marsollek and Sakamoto, Sakamoto teaches the at least one stator pole comprises a plurality of stator poles (1-1 and 1-2, see Fig. 1(a)); the at least one mover pole comprises a plurality of mover poles (3-1 and 3-3); and each one of the plurality of mover poles faces a corresponding one of the plurality of stator poles (3-1 faces 1-1 and 3-3 faces 1-2), wherein: each one of the plurality of mover poles has a width along the second direction that is less than a width of the corresponding one of the plurality of stator poles along the second direction (Wr2 is smaller than Ws2).
For claims 8, 9, 17, and 18, in the combination of Marsollek and Sakamoto, Sakamoto teaches in a reluctance motor the first stator part is configured to exert a magnetic force on the first mover part along a first line of actuation (the rotor pole teeth 3-1 and 3-3 are attracted to the magnetized stator magnetic poles 1-1 and 1-2, respectively, so as to oppose the stator magnetic poles as shown in FIG. 1(a) and in col. 3 lines 60-68), and the first mover part is movable relative to the first stator part in the first direction, the first stator part and the first mover part are configured such that the first line of actuation is, in operational use, moving along with the first mover part in the second direction for at least a predetermined movement range of the first mover part in the second direction (movement caused by successive energizing of the coils, see col. 1 line 42-col. 2 line 11).
For claims 11 and 20, in the combination of Marsollek and Sakamoto, Sakamoto teaches
the first stator part comprises a first stator pole and a second stator pole, and the first mover part comprises a first mover pole facing the first stator pole and a second mover pole facing the second stator pole (both right side faces of the stator magnetic pole 1-1 and the rotor pole tooth 3-1 being aligned with each other and both left side faces of the stator magnetic pole 1-2 and the rotor pole tooth 3-3 being aligned with each other, see Fig. 1(a)).
Claim 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsollek and Sakamoto as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Hol et al. [US 2012/0019794].
For claims 10 and 19, in the combination of Marsollek and Sakamoto, Sakamoto teaches in a reluctance motor the first stator part is configured to cause a magnetic flux in the first mover part (magnetic flux issued from the stator magnetic pole the face of the rotor pole tooth, see Fig. 1(a)). Marsollek fails to teach the first stator part and the first mover part are configured such that the magnetic flux density is, at least in the first mover part, in operational use, constant for at least the predetermined movement range and for a predetermined magnitude of the magnetic force.
Hol teaches the first stator part and the first mover part are configured such that the magnetic flux density is, at least in the first mover part, in operational use, constant for at least the predetermined movement range and for a predetermined magnitude of the magnetic force (maintaining a desired setpoint force requires a constant magnetic flux within the operational area, see [0059]-[0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the control configuration as taught by Hol in the reluctance motor as taught by Marsollek in order to ensure that the actuator provides the desired current to reach the desired applied force.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6, 7, 15, and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and the nonstatutory double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The previously cited prior art fails to teach “each one of the plurality of mover poles has a width along a third direction that is less than a width of the corresponding one of the plurality of stator poles along the third direction, the third direction being a direction that is perpendicular to each of the first direction and the second direction,” as recited in claims 6 and 15 and “viewed in a third direction that is perpendicular to each of the first direction and the second direction, a width of the at least one mover pole along the third direction is smaller than a width of the at least one stator pole along the third direction,” recited in claims 7 and 16 and based on the interpretation above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Baumans et al. [US 3,894,275] teaches in Fig. 1 a step motor with armatures of the mover that have a smaller width than the armatures of the stator in the direction of motion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/Steven H Whitesell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759