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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/8/2025 has been entered.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-4, 7-8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grejda et al. (US20200266092), hereinafter Grejda, in view of Yassour et al. (US20070195653), hereinafter Yassour.
Regarding claim 1, Grejda discloses a substrate holding apparatus comprising: a rotary stage (Figs. 1-2 and 4 element 10, excluding elements 44, 26, and 60); and a clamp part (Fig. 4 elements 60) that supports an edge of a substrate which is an object to be rotated by the rotary stage in a planar direction of the substrate (0050-0051, where substrate corresponds to substrate), wherein the rotary stage is provided with: a plurality of gas supply openings (Fig. 2, where the openings defined by the space which elements 22 occupy corresponds to a plurality of gas supply openings) that supply a gas toward the substrate (0035, where gas corresponds to gas); and one or more gas exhaust openings (Fig. 2 elements 50) that are provided to each of the plurality of gas supply openings so as to surround peripheries the gas supply openings (Figs. 3-4, 0044, where the where the gas exhaust openings are located in the areas corresponding to elements 40 and the gas supply openings are located in the areas corresponding to elements 20 and where the embodiment of Figs. 3-4 where “each of the plurality of positive pressure regions 20 may be disposed between two of the negative pressure regions 40” discussed in 0044 is being used, and with this embodiment, each gas exhaust opening will surround a corresponding gas supply opening), and an outer peripheral of the rotary stage (see annotated Fig. 1 below, where outer circumferential region corresponds to an outer peripheral of the rotary stage).
Grejda fails to disclose the clamp part has, at an outer peripheral of the rotary stage, a holding claw whose rotation axis is in a gravity direction, and wherein the holding claw moves in an in-plane direction of the substrate to grasp the substrate.
Yassour is also concerned with a substrate holding apparatus and teaches the clamp part (Figs. 6a-6c element 602) has, at an outer peripheral of the rotary stage (see annotated Fig. 6c below, where element 604 corresponds to a rotary stage), a holding claw (Figs. 6a-6c element 626) whose rotation axis is in a gravity direction (see annotated Fig. 6c below), and wherein the holding claw moves in an in-plane direction of the substrate (Fig. 6c, where the double arrow shown on element 620 corresponds to an in-plane direction of the substrate (603)) to grasp the substrate (0176, where “prevent lateral movements of object 603 with respect to platform 604” corresponds to grasp the substrate). It 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 to modify the substrate holding apparatus of Grejda to replace the clamp part with the clamp part taught by Yassour because Yassour teaches that a clamp part that has, at an outer peripheral of the rotary stage, a holding claw whose rotation axis is in a gravity direction, andwherein the holding claw moves in an in-plane direction of the substrate to grasp the substrate can be used to “align object 603 in a desired horizontal centricity with respect to platform 604, and to substantially prevent lateral movements of object 603 with respect to platform 604” (0176) and “allow vertical movements of idler 624, e.g., without generating significant vertical forces duxing fluid-cushion gap adjustment by AM-means” (0176), and examiner further finds that having a clamp part which can adjust horizontally allows for different sized substrates to be held by the substrate holding apparatus.
Examiner notes that while the embodiment where “each of the plurality of positive pressure regions 20 may be disposed between two of the negative pressure regions 40” discussed in 0044 of Grejda is being used, subsequent claims rely on annotated figures from the embodiment where “each of the plurality of negative pressure regions 40 may be disposed between two of the positive pressure regions 20” discussed in 0044 of Grejda as it is the embodiment provided in the drawings, however examiner finds that the annotated figures used below are used for relative recitations, such as distances between the negative and positive pressure regions, and examiner finds that when the negative and positive pressure regions are swapped, these recitations shown in the annotated figures below are still disclosed.
PNG
media_image1.png
329
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
266
473
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Grejda, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a first gas exhaust opening is provided around a first gas supply opening among the plurality of gas supply openings (Grejda, see annotated Fig. 3 below), and a first distance between the first gas supply opening and the first gas exhaust opening is constant (Grejda, see annotated Fig. 3 below, where the distance from the center of the first gas supply opening to the center of the first gas exhaust opening corresponds to a first distance which is constant), a second gas exhaust opening is provided around a second gas supply opening among the plurality of gas supply openings (Grejda, see annotated Fig. 3 below), and a second distance between the second gas supply opening and the second gas exhaust opening is constant (Grejda, see annotated Fig. 3 below, where the distance from the center of the second gas supply opening to the center of the second gas exhaust opening corresponds to a second distance which is constant), and when a circle that is centered on the first gas supply opening and has a radius of the first distance is defined as a first virtual circumference and a circle that is centered on the second gas supply opening and has a radius of the second distance is defined as a second virtual circumference in a plan view of the rotary stage, a part of the first virtual circumference and a part of the second virtual circumference exist between the first gas supply opening and the second gas supply opening (Grejda, see annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
600
641
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Grejda, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses one gas exhaust opening is provided to one gas supply opening among the plurality of gas supply openings, and the one gas exhaust opening annularly surrounds around the one gas supply opening (Grejda, see annotated 3 above, where the second gas exhaust opening is one gas exhaust opening which is provided the second gas exhaust opening which is one gas exhaust opening, but examiner finds that any combination of a single gas supply opening and a single gas exhaust opening would meet this limitation).
Regarding claim 4, Grejda, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses an upper end of the gas supply opening is provided at a position lower than an upper end of the gas exhaust opening (Grejda, see annotated Fig. 2 below, where at least a portion of the upper end of the gas supply opening is provided at a position lower than an upper end of the gas exhaust opening).
PNG
media_image4.png
355
629
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Grejda, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses an upper surface of the rotary stage is formed such that a height of the upper surface is higher toward an outer circumferential region of the rotary stage than at a central region of the rotary stage (Grejda, see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 8, Grejda, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the plurality of gas exhaust openings are provided around the plurality of gas supply openings, respectively (Grejda, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Grejda, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses an arrangement pattern of the plurality of gas supply openings when the rotary stage is viewed in a plan view is point symmetric with a rotation center point of the rotary stage as a symmetric point (Grejda, Fig. 3).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grejda et al. (US20200266092), hereinafter Grejda, in view of Yassour et al. (US20070195653), hereinafter Yassour, and in further view of Tseng et al. (US20130156947), hereinafter Tseng.
Regarding claim 5, Grejda, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a gas supply source (Grejda, Fig. 2 element 26) and a gas exhaust source (Grejda, Fig. 2 element 44).
Grejda, as modified, fails to disclose a plurality of sets of gas supply sources and gas exhaust sources.
Tseng is also concerned with a substrate holding apparatus and teaches using a plurality of vacuum sources and also teaches the equivalence of using one vacuum source or multiple vacuum sources (0027). Pursuant MPEP 2143_I_E, it 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 to modify the substrate holding apparatus to have multiple sets of gas supply sources and gas exhaust sources instead of a single gas supply source and a single gas exhaust source, as taught by Tseng, as it has been held that an “obvious to try” rationale when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be established: (1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem; (2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and (4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
In the instant case, and as per (1), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a need in the art to provide independent control of vacuum zones in a substrate holding apparatus (based at least on the disclosure of Grejda (see paragraph 0059)). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a finite number of identifiable, predictable potential solutions for the amount of gas supply and gas exhaust sources, namely that there needs to be a minimum of one gas supply source and one gas exhaust source and a maximum number of gas supply sources and gas exhaust sources which is equal to the number of gas supply openings and gas exhaust openings, respectively, which is also taught by Tseng (see paragraph 0027). As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having multiple gas supply and gas exhaust sources could have been pursued with a reasonable expectation of success, since said finite number of potential arrangements would have not yielded unpredictable results, nor would have rendered the prior art inoperable for its intended purpose. That is, having multiple gas supply and gas exhaust sources would have still expectedly have resulted in a substrate holding apparatus which is able to independently control different pressure regions to hold a substrate. As per (4), based on the above analysis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the substrate holding apparatus of Grejda, as modified, and to have modified them based on the teachings of Tseng to provide multiple gas supply and gas exhaust sources, as a matter of trying a set of obvious, finite and predictable solutions, in order to obtain the best structural arrangement of components that best suits a gas supply and gas exhaust supply arrangement that independently control different pressure regions, without yielding unpredictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Grejda, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and further discloses while the plurality of sets of gas supply sources and gas exhaust sources maintain a ratio between a value of a supply pressure of the gas in each of the plurality of gas supply openings and a value of an exhaust pressure of the gas in the one or more gas exhaust openings respectively corresponding to the plurality of gas supply openings, the gas is supplied such that the value of the supply pressure of the gas supplied to the gas supply opening positioned in a central portion of the rotary stage among the plurality of gas supply openings is larger than the value of the supply pressure of the gas supplied to the gas supply opening positioned in a peripheral portion of the rotary stage, and the gas is exhausted such that the value of the exhaust pressure of the gas exhausted from the one or more gas exhaust openings positioned in the central portion of the rotary stage is larger than the value of the exhaust pressure of the gas exhausted from the one or more gas exhaust openings positioned in the peripheral portion of the rotary stage (Grejda, 0059, where being capable of independently controlling each of the positive and negative pressures at each region means that the substrate holding apparatus is capable of meeting this limitation).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grejda et al. (US20200266092), hereinafter Grejda, in view of Yassour et al. (US20070195653), hereinafter Yassour, and in further view of Kasumi (US20100059904).
Regarding claim 10, Grejda, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a gas supply source (Grejda, Fig. 2 element 26) that supplies the gas by applying a positive pressure to the plurality of gas supply openings (Grejda, 0035); and an unidentified structure which controls inflow and interruption of the gas from the gas supply source to the gas supply opening positioned in a peripheral portion of the rotary stage among the plurality of gas supply openings (Grejda, 0059, where being capable of independently controlling each of the positive and negative pressures at each region means that the substrate holding apparatus is capable of meeting this limitation).
Grejda, as modified, fails to disclose that the unidentified structure is a valve.
Kasumi is also concerned with a substrate holding apparatus and teaches using a valve (Fig. 1 element 222) which controls inflow and interruption of the gas from the gas supply source to the gas supply opening positioned in a peripheral portion of the rotary stage among the plurality of gas supply openings (0029). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06_II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Grejda, as modified, discloses the invention except that the structure which controls inflow and interruption of the gas is an unidentified structure instead of a valve. Kasumi shows that a valve is an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two structures to control inflow and interruption of the gas were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a valve structure for an unidentified structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8, 10, and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejections rely on a different combination of prior art as the combination of prior art challenged by Applicant in the Arguments/Remarks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Monica Carter can be reached on 571-272-4475. 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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723