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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” “According to the disclosure,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they do not conform with 37 CFR 1.75 (i). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation.
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: supporting structure (Claims 1-11) and XY setting mechanism (Claims 7-8).
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 § 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.
Claim 4 is 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 4, the phrase “Lorentz type actuator” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(III)(E) re. “type”.
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) 1-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bradley (WO2008085510A1).
Claim 1: a supporting structure (110),
an object table (122) for supporting the object and a positioning module (120, 130a-c, 150a-c) structured for positioning the object table relative to the supporting structure within the XYZ-system of coordinates,
wherein the positioning module comprises
a frame (120) for supporting the object table and
at least three actuator devices (150a-c),
each structured for positioning the frame in the Z-direction of the XYZ-system of coordinates (p. 7, lines 11-25);
Claim 2: wherein the positioning module comprises at least one further actuator device structured to rotate the frame around the Z- axis of the XYZ-system of coordinates (The three linear actuators 130a-c are disclosed to work together with rotational joints 142a-c and rotational joins 132a-c, such that a rotation of the wafer table is exerted, see Fig. 2 and page 7, line 11-page 8, line 11 of the description. So, Bradley discloses a positioning system wherein the positioning module comprises at least one further actuator device (130a-c) structured to rotate the frame around the Z-axis of the XYZ-system of coordinates.);
Claim 3: wherein the frame is formed as a triangle shaped frame, and wherein each of said at least three actuator devices are mounted at a vertex of the triangle shaped frame (a positioning system 100 wherein the frame is formed as a triangle shaped frame, and wherein each of said at least three actuator devices are mounted at a vertex of the triangle shaped frame; abstract, line 2);
Claim 4: wherein the at least one further actuator device is mounted to an edge of the triangle shaped frame (a positioning system 100 wherein the at least one further actuator device is mounted to an edge of the triangle shaped frame, by effect of rotational joints 142a-c);
Claim 7: wherein the positioning module comprising an XY setting mechanism for orienting the frame in the XY-plane of the XYZ-system of coordinates (Bradley discloses equally a positioning system wherein the positioning module comprising an XY setting mechanism for orienting the frame in the XY-plane of the XYZ-system of coordinates, because actuators 130a-c together with rotational joints 142a-c and rotational joins 132a-c provide placement of the frame 120 in an XY-plane.)
Claim 8: wherein the XY setting mechanism is structured to restrain the frame in the XY-plane of the XYZ-system of coordinates (Bradley discloses equally a positioning system according to claim 8 because Bradley discloses that / movements are provided on top of XY placements).
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (US 2013/0038853) (“Zhu”).
Claim 1: a supporting structure (3),
an object table (Figure 5; para. [0038]) for supporting the object and a positioning module (5-8) structured for positioning the object table relative to the supporting structure within the XYZ-system of coordinates (para. [0034]),
wherein the positioning module (Figure 5-8) comprises
a frame (rails of linear motors 17/18/19) for supporting the object table and
at least three actuator devices,
each structured for positioning the frame in the Z-direction of the XYZ-system of coordinates (Figure 5; coil 7 and similar coils);
Claim 5: wherein each actuator device is constructed as a Lorentz type actuator (para. [0005]/[0036]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley in view of Hazelton et al (US 2003/0173833) (“Hazelton”). Bradley discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Bradley does not directly show:
Claim 6: wherein each actuator device is constructed as a variable reluctance magnetic bearing assembly.
Hazelton shows a similar device having:
Claim 6: wherein each actuator device is constructed as a variable reluctance magnetic bearing assembly (para. [0012]/[0031]-[0037]; FIG. 2-3);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a flexible and accurate positioning system with low forces exerted on the frame. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bradley as taught by Hazelton and include Hazelton’s similar device having:
Claim 6: wherein each actuator device is constructed as a variable reluctance magnetic bearing assembly;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a flexible and accurate positioning system with low forces exerted on the frame.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley in view of Balan (US 2020/0400588). Bradley discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Bradley does not directly show:
Claim 9: wherein the XY setting mechanism comprises a spindle actuator.
Balan shows a similar device having:
Claim 9: wherein the XY setting mechanism comprises a spindle actuator (para. [0053]; at least a rotary-driving ball screw linear motor is a spindle actuator);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the settling time of the device into a desired position to improve fabrication results (para. [0003]-[0005]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bradley as taught by Balan and include Balan’s similar device having:
Claim 9: wherein the XY setting mechanism comprises a spindle actuator;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the settling time of the device into a desired position to improve fabrication results.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley in view of Jacobsen (US 5481184). Bradley discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Bradley does not directly show:
Claim 10: wherein the XY setting mechanism comprises a flexible rod actuator;
Claim 11: wherein the flexible rod actuator includes a piezo-actuator.
Jacobsen shows a similar device having:
Claim 10: wherein the XY setting mechanism comprises a flexible rod actuator (FIG. 2A/2B; 56/76; col. 4, lines 19-26);
Claim 11: wherein the flexible rod actuator includes a piezo-actuator (FIG. 2A/2B; 56/76; col. 4, lines 19-26);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing precise actuation by electrical input into the actuator (FIG. 2A/2B; 56/76; col. 3, line 59 to col 4, line 26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bradley as taught by Jacobsen and include Jacobsen’s similar device having:
Claim 10: wherein the XY setting mechanism comprises a flexible rod actuator;
Claim 11: wherein the flexible rod actuator includes a piezo-actuator;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing precise actuation by electrical input into the actuator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2008/0055756 discloses actuators 46A-46C.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gerald McClain whose telephone number is (571)272-7803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and at gerald.mcclain@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 (II)).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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.
/Gerald McClain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights