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 limitations include the second positioning module in claim 13.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 28-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
A computer-readable medium as recited in claim 28 can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment, see MPEP 2106.03, Eligibility Step 1. The Examiner recommends rewriting the claims as a non-transitory computer readable medium. Claims 29-33 depend therefrom.
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 13-15, 17, 19-24, 26-31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. [US 7,253,576] in view of Butler [US 2009/0201477].
For claims 13, 21, 22, 28 and 29, Yuan teaches a stage apparatus (see Figs. 2 and 3), associated method and a computer-readable medium comprising instructions therein, the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, configured to cause the one or more processors to perform the method (control system 24 embodied as a processer for performing the function, see col. 6 lines 35-40), comprising an object holder (208) configured to hold an object (200), a positioner comprising a first positioning module (horizontal actuators 216) and a second positioning module (204), wherein the first positioning module comprises an actuator (216) configured to position the object holder, and the second positioning module is configured to position the object holder and the first positioning module based on an object holder set point (set point position from command, see Fig. 3) representing a desired movement of the object holder during positioning with the second positioning module (position signal sent to controlling first stage movement, see Fig. 3), a processing unit (see Fig. 3) configured to determine a corrected object holder set point based on relative displacement between the second positioning module and the object holder position caused by a gap distance of the first positioning module during positioning with the second positioning module (gap distance signal and second stage position incorporated into the control of the first stage, see Fig. 3 and col. 10 lines 10-55).
Yang fails to teach a piezo or electrostrictive actuator or deformation of the first positioning module.
Butler teaches a piezo or electrostrictive actuator or deformation of the first positioning module (ultra short stroke actuators 9 have a relative high stiffness and are for instance piezo-elements which lengthen or shorten when actuate, see [0046]).
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 piezo actuators that deform as taught by Butler in the fine stage control as taught by Yang in order to provide higher precision and smaller footprint.
For claims 14, 23, and 30, Yang teaches the corrected object holder set point represents a correction for the object holder set point, wherein the second positioning module is configured to position the object holder and the first positioning module based on the corrected object holder set point (gap distance signal and second stage position incorporated into the control of the first stage, see Fig. 3 and col. 10 lines 10-55).
For claims 15, 24, and 31, Yang teaches the corrected object holder set point represents a correction for the movement of the object holder during positioning with the second positioning module (gap distance signal and second stage position incorporated into the control of the first stage, see Fig. 3 and col. 10 lines 10-55).
For claims 17, 26, and 33, Yang teaches the apparatus is a lithographic apparatus (see Fig. 1), a metrology apparatus, a particle beam apparatus, an electron beam apparatus, an electron beam inspection apparatus, or an inspection apparatus.
For claim 19, Yang teaches a device manufacturing method (see Figs. 1, 9A, and 9B) comprising transferring a pattern from a patterning device onto a substrate using a lithographic apparatus comprising the stage apparatus according to claim 13.
For claim 20 and 27, Yang fails to teach the second positioning module comprises at least a piezo or electrostrictive actuator.
Butler teaches the second positioning module comprises at least a piezo or electrostrictive actuator. (ultra short stroke actuators 9 have a relative high stiffness and are for instance piezo-elements which lengthen or shorten when actuate, see [0046]).
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 piezo actuators that deform as taught by Butler in the stage control as taught by Yang in order to provide higher precision and smaller footprint.
Claims 16, 25, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Butler as applied to claims 13, 21, and 28 above, and further in view of Fleming [US 2011/0193510].
For claims 16, 25, and 32, Yang teaches the corrected object holder set point band on a gap distance of an actuator (see Fig. 3), and Butler teaches the first piezo or electrostrictive actuator (see [0046]) but fails to teach the set point is based on at least a stiffness of at least the first piezo or electrostrictive actuator.
Fleming teaches the set point is based on at least a stiffness of at least the first piezo or electrostrictive actuator (change in length based on stiffness, see [0139]-[0148]).
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 distance using a stiffness constant as taught by Fleming in the feedback control as taught by Yang and Butler in order to determine the desired extension of a specific piezoelectric actuator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Butler [US 2011/0001951] teaches a control system for long-stroke and short-stroke actuators of a wafer holder.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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
Prosecution Insights