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 12 objected to because of the following informalities: “…configured to move the stator an array…” seems to be missing a word. Specifically, “along” which was crossed out in the preliminary amendment seems to have been inadvertently crossed out. 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 14, 15, 25 and 28 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 claims 14, 15 and 25, it is unclear to which structure in the specification, the 0 claimed third coil and fourth coil correspond. The claims are directed to the third coil and the fourth coil having different currents in the first driving process and the second driving process. However, Fig. 6B and 7B and para 0031, 0032, 0035 and 0036 disclose that the coil. No 6 and coil No. 7 have equal magnitude currents in the first driving process and the second driving process.
In order to expedite prosecution, the claim as written is examined. However, a further clarification of the discrepancy between the claim language and the specification is requested.
Regarding claim 28, it is unclear if “a pattern”, “a substrate” and “a lithographic apparatus” in claim 28 is the same as in claim 27, on which claim 28 depend. In order to expedite, prosecution, it is assumed that they are the same in claim 28 as in claim 27.
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 12, 23, 27 and 28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,130,560. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 12, claim 13 of the patent is directed to a driving apparatus that drives a target object, the apparatus comprising: a linear motor including a stator in which a plurality of coils are arrayed, and a mover provided with the target object (“a linear motor”) in a predetermined range (“driving the mover in a predetermined range by the linear motor”); a moving mechanism configured to move the stator along an array direction of the plurality of coils (“a moving mechanism”); and a controller (‘a controller”) configured to perform a first driving process of driving the target object by the linear motor with the stator at a first position (“a first driving process”, move the stator to a second position (“after the first driving process, a changing process of changing a position of the stator”, and then perform a second driving process (“after the changing process, a second driving process of driving the mover”) wherein magnitude of a current of a first coil when the stator is at the first position (”supply a first current to a first coil…when accelerating the mover in a predetermined direction in the first driving process”) is different from magnitude of current of the first coil when stator is at the second position (“supply a second current smaller than the first current to the first coil…in the second driving process”).
Regarding claim 23, claim 1 of the patent is directed to a control method of a driving apparatus that drives a target object in a predetermined range (“first driving of driving the mover in a predetermined range”), by a linear motor including a stator in which a plurality of coils are arrayed and a mover provided with the target object, the method comprising: performing a first driving process of driving the target object by the linear motor with the stator at a first position (“first driving of driving the mover…by the linear motor”); moving the stator from the first position to a second position along an array direction of the plurality of coils (“changing, after the first driving, a position of the stator with respect to the predetermined range”); and then performing a second driving process of driving the target by the linear motor with the stator at the second position (“second driving of driving, after the changing”), wherein magnitude of a current of a first coil included in the plurality of coils when the stator is at the first position is different from magnitude of a current of the first coil when the stator is at the second position (“when accelerating the mover in a predetermined direction in the first driving, a first current is supplied to a first coil … when accelerating the mover in the predetermined direction in the second driving, a second current smaller than the first current is supplied to the first coil”).
Claim 27 corresponds to claim 14 of the patent.
Claim 28 corresponds to claim 15 of the patent.
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) 12, 22, 27 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Niwatsukino (2007/0279614).
Regarding claim 12, Niwatsukino discloses driving apparatus (Fig. 3, 4, para 0027, 0028) that drives a target object (reticle 7 on stage 4), the apparatus comprising: a linear motor including a stator (13) in which a plurality of coils (14) are arrayed and a mover provided with the target object (Fig. 4, para 0028), and configured to drive the target object in a predetermined range (para 0029-0031); a moving mechanism (16) configured to move the stator along an array direction of the plurality of coils (para 0028); and a controller (23) configured to perform a first driving process of driving the target object by the linear motor with the stator at a first position (para 0031, “the driving electric power becomes largest at a position pos_max, since in this driving pattern at the position pos_max the driving electric power is produced only in the phase A, loads are applied only to the phase A”), move the stator from the first position to a second position by the moving mechanism (para 0035, “the position of the stator is set so as to avoid… where the magnetic flux density of at least one phase of coil becomes equal to zero”, “the stator position may be set to such position where in both of phases A and B the electric phase angle of the coil becomes equal to 45 degrees”), and then perform a second driving process of driving the target object by the linear motor with the stator at the second position (Fig. 6, para 0035), wherein magnitude of a current of a first coil included in the plurality of coils when the stator is at the first position is different from magnitude of a current of the first coil when the stator is at the second position (Fig. 5, 6, para 0031-0035, the magnitude of current of at least one coil at the first stator position and the first driving process is zero and at the second stator position and the second driving process, the magnitude is not zero).
As stated in MPEP 2114 II. “manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art”. Niwatsukino discloses a controller configured to perform the claimed first driving process and second driving process.
Regarding claim 22, Niwatsukino discloses wherein the linear motor is a multi-phase excitation driving type linear motor (para 0027).
Regarding claim 27, Niwatsukino discloses a lithography apparatus (Fig. 3) for forming a pattern on a substrate (8), comprising: a driving apparatus defined in claim 12, wherein the driving apparatus drives, as the target object, a stage configured to hold the substrate or an original (7) including a pattern to be transferred onto the substrate (para 0027).
Regarding claim 28, Niwatsukino discloses a method of manufacturing an article, comprising: forming a pattern on a substrate (8) by using a lithography apparatus (Fig. 3) defined in claim 27 (para 0027); processing the substrate on which the pattern has been formed; and manufacture an article from the processed substrate (para 0044).
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 nvention 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) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwatsukino (2007/0279614).
Regarding claims 13-15, Niwatsukino discloses the claimed invention as discussed above. Although Niwatsukino does not specifically disclose wherein the controller is configured to move the stator such that a current of a second coil when accelerating the mover in the first driving process is larger than a current of the second coil when accelerating the mover in the second driving process, the second coil being included in the plurality of coils and adjacent to the first coil, wherein the controller is configured to move the stator such that a current of a third coil when decelerating the mover in the first driving process is smaller than a current of the third coil when decelerating the mover in the second driving process, the third coil being included in the plurality of coils or wherein the controller is configured to move the stator such that a current of a fourth coil when decelerating the mover in the first driving process is larger than a current of the fourth coil when decelerating the mover in the second driving process, the fourth coil being included in the plurality of coils and adjacent to the third coil, Niwatsukino discloses moving the stator so that instead of applying a large load or current to only one coil (Fig. 5, para 0031), a lesser load or current is evenly applied to both of two-phase coils (Fig. 6, para 0035). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the position of the stator so that a current of a second coil when accelerating the mover in the first driving process is larger than a current of the second coil when accelerating the mover in the second driving process, a current of a third coil when decelerating the mover in the first driving process is smaller than a current of the third coil when decelerating the mover in the second driving process and a current of a fourth coil when decelerating the mover in the first driving process is larger than a current of the fourth coil when decelerating the mover in the second driving process, in order to ensure a large load is not applied to only one of the coils and local heat generation of the coil is reduced as taught by Niwatsukino in para 0031, 0035.
Regarding claim 16, although Niwatsukino does not disclose wherein the controller is configured to move the stator such that a phase angle between the stator and the mover is changed by 90°, Niwatsukino discloses avoiding the position of stator where the magnetic flux density of at least one phase of coil becomes equal to zero. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the position of the stator such that a phase angle between the stator and the mover is changed by 90° in order to ensure that the magnetic flux density of at least one phase coil does not equal zero to reduce local heat generation.
Regarding claim 17, Niwatsukino discloses wherein the mover includes a plurality of magnets arrayed along the array direction of the plurality of coils (Fig. 4). Although Niwatsukino does not disclose wherein the controller is configured to move the stator by a distance of half an array pitch of the plurality of magnets, Niwatsukino discloses avoiding the position of stator where the magnetic flux density of at least one phase of coil becomes equal to zero. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the position of the stator by a distance of half an array pitch of the plurality of magnets so that a large load is not applied to only one of the coils and local heat generation of the coil is reduced as taught by Niwatsukino in para 0031, 0035.
Claim(s) 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwatsukino as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Mizuno et al. (Mizuno) (JP 2001-1349137 in IDS).
Regarding claim 18, Niwatsukino does not disclose wherein the controller is configured to move the stator in a case where the number of driving operations of the target object reaches a threshold value in the first driving process. Mizuno discloses in the abstract, stopping the output current to the coil when the number of operation reaches a predetermined value (threshold) to prevent overheating. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide stopping the output current to the coil or taking a remedial action, such as moving the stator, in order to prevent overheating when a threshold value is reached.
Regarding claim 19, Niwatsukino does not disclose wherein the controller is configured to move the stator in a case where a temperature of the linear motor reaches a threshold value in the first driving process. Mizuno discloses that the number of operation is directly related to temperature, and determines how many operation would take to reach a temperature that requires stopping of the output current and uses the number of operation as a threshold (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a temperature sensor to monitor the temperature and use a predetermined temperature as a threshold to stop the output current or take a remedial action, such as moving the stator, in order to prevent overheating when a threshold value is reached.
Regarding claim 20, Niwatsukino does not disclose wherein the controller is configured to move the stator in a case where an electric characteristic of at least one coil among the plurality of coils reaches a threshold value in the first driving process, and the electric characteristic includes at least one of a resistance value, a voltage value, a current value, and an inductance value. Mizuno discloses in the abstract, stopping the output current to the coil when the number of operation reaches a predetermined value (threshold) to prevent overheating. Since Niwatsukino discloses avoiding the position of stator where the magnetic flux density of at least one phase of coil becomes equal to zero, and since magnetic flux density is directly related to current, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a predetermined current value as a threshold to stop the operation as taught by Mizuno or take a remedial action, such as moving the stator, in order to prevent overheating when a threshold value is reached.
Regarding claim 21, although Niwatsukino does not disclose wherein the controller is configured to move the stator in a case where a difference between a measurement value indicating a driving state of the target object and a target value reaches a threshold value in the first driving process, and the driving state includes at least one of a velocity, an acceleration, and a position, Niwatsukno discloses the driving electric power becomes largest at a position “pos_max” (Fig. 5, para 0031). Mizuno discloses in the abstract, stopping the output current to the coil when the number of operation reaches a predetermined value (threshold) to prevent overheating. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a predetermined position as a threshold to stop the operation as taught by Mizuno or take a remedial action, such as moving the stator, in order to prevent overheating when a threshold value is reached.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 would be allowed if the double patenting rejection indicated above is overcome.
Regarding claim 23, none of the prior art of record teaches or discloses a control method of a driving apparatus that drives a target object in a predetermined range, by a linear motor including a stator in which a plurality of coils are arrayed and a mover provided with the target object, the method comprising: performing a first driving process of driving the target object by the linear motor with the stator at a first position; moving the stator from the first position to a second position ; and then performing a second driving process of driving the target by the linear motor with the stator at the second position, wherein magnitude of a current of a first coil included in the plurality of coils when the stator is at the first position is different from magnitude of a current of the first coil when the stator is at the second position.
Niwatsukino discloses a controller configured to perform a first driving process, moving the stator and then performing a second driving process as indicated in the rejection of claim 12. However, Niwatsukino does not disclose the method of moving the stator in the middle of a driving pattern. Niwatsukino does not disclose changing the position of the stator between the first driving process and the second driving process. Niwatsukino discloses an apparatus configured for such method but does not disclose or suggest the method of claim 23. Niwatsukino discloses avoiding the problem of a large load applying only to the phase A coil “by displacing the stator coil before start of the exposure” in para 0032. Also in para 0036, Niwatsukino discloses, “if the same driving pattern is going to be repeated, the procedure at the first, second and third steps may be carried out only once at the initial operation” (para 0036). Here, the first, second and third steps are indicated in Fig 1. The first step is acquiring exposure parameter. The second step is calculating position where driving power is largest, and the third step is moving stator coil (para 0033-0035).
Claim 24 is 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.
Claim 24 is dependent on claim 23, and none of the claims of the related patents are directed to the magnitude of the second coil adjacent to the first coil.
Conclusion
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 February 28, 2026