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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6 – 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (U.S. Patent Number 6,416,402) in view of Bottema (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0266324).
As to claim 1, Moore teaches a substrate chuck for fixing a substrate to an upper surface of a surface plate of the substrate chuck (abstract), the substrate chuck comprising: the surface plate having at least one space part as an empty space that is open upward toward a bottom surface of a chucking film on a portion of the upper surface of the surface plate (figures 3 and 6, element 18 being the ‘surface plate,’ one of elements 24 being the ‘at least one space part,’ and element 22 being the ‘chucking film’; column 2, lines 51 – 56 and column 3, lines 11 - 15); the chucking film formed of a flexible material capable of elastic deformation and installed on the upper surface of the surface plate (figures 3 and 6, elements 22 and 18; column 4, lines 56 – 62 and column 3, lines 36 – 41); a pressure adjuster configured for applying pressure to the at least one space part through a pneumatic passage extending from the pressure adjuster to an air chamber in communication with the at least one space part (figure 6, element 50 being the ‘pressure adjuster’; column 3, lines 11 – 29), wherein, based on an amount of downward convex displacement of the chucking film, the pressure adjuster is configured to control a magnitude of negative pressure applied to the at least one space part so that a downward convex displacement of the chucking film reaches a predetermined value, when the substrate is fixed to the chucking film by vacuum formed between the substrate and the chucking film due to the elastic deformation of the chucking film at the at least one space part (figure 6, elements 50 and 22; column 3, lines 11 – 29). This can be found because Moore teaches that the pressure adjuster is configured to create a given amount of vacuum through the at least one space part to cause the downward convex displacement in the chucking film (figures 3 and 6, elements 50, 24 and 22; column 3, lines 11 – 42). Therefore, when the downward convex displacement is formed in the chucking film by a pressure adjuster, it is the position of the Examiner that the pressure adjuster of Moore may then either be turned off, such that the pressure adjuster no longer creates the vacuum in the at least one space part, or the amount of vacuum created by the pressure adjuster can be decreased. In reaching this conclusion, Examiner notes that the claim is directed towards the ‘substrate chuck’ itself, rather than a method of ‘operating a substrate chuck,’ such that the claimed functions of the pressure adjuster amount to functional language.
However, Moore does not teach the substrate chuck further comprising a monitoring sensor. Bottema teaches a substrate chuck for fixing a substrate in which the substrate is fixed to an upper surface of a surface plate of the substrate chuck (abstract), the substrate chuck comprising: a surface plate having a space part as an empty space that is open upward toward a bottom surface of a chucking film on a portion of the supper surface of the surface plate (figure 3, element 40 being the ‘surface plate’ and element 22 being the ‘chucking film,’ see below; paragraphs 19 and 22); and a pressure adjuster configured for applying pressure to the space part through a pneumatic passage extending from the pressure adjuster to the space part (figure 3, element 32 being the ‘pressure adjuster’ and element 55 being ‘pneumatic passage’; paragraphs 29 – 31).
PNG
media_image1.png
174
709
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bottema further teaches a monitoring sensor disposed in the space part and configured to detect a downward convex displacement at the space part of the chucking film, when negative pressure is applied to the space part by the pressure adjuster and at least one part of the chucking film is configured to be deformed elastically and convexly downward at the space part (figure 1, elements 46 and 32 being the ‘monitoring sensor’; paragraphs 21 – 23). Examiner notes that this can be found because Bottema teaches that, when a substrate is placed on an upper surface of the chucking film and the pressure adjuster applies a negative pressure to the substrate chuck, the chucking film forms a downward convex displacement and becomes affixed to the substrate (figure 3, elements 22 and 32; paragraphs 21 – 23). Bottema further teaches that the monitoring system is configured to detect the specific instance of the substrate being affixed to the chucking film (figure 3, elements 46 and 32; paragraph 22). It is the position of the Examiner that the substrate becomes affixed to the chucking film only when the chucking films forms the downward convex displacement. Therefore, the monitoring system further acts to detect the downward convex displacement of the chucking film, as well as the affixing of the substrate to the chucking film. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the substrate chuck of Moore with the monitoring sensor of Bottema, because Bottema teaches that the use of the monitoring sensor provides the benefit of monitoring the negative pressure within the space part, allowing the substrate chuck to ensure that the substrate is fixed to the chuck (paragraph 32).
As to claim 4, Moore teaches that the at least one space part comprises a plurality of the space parts (figure 6, elements 24; column 3, lines 11 – 15).
As to claim 6, Moore teaches that the air chamber formed to communicate with the plurality of space parts is formed in the surface plate (figures 3 and 4, element 26 being the ‘air chamber’; column 3, lines 36 – 39).
As to claim 7, Moore teaches a driving motor for rotating the surface plate (figure 6, element 33 being the ‘driving motor’; column 4, lines 58 – 60).
As to claim 8, Moore teaches that the surface plate further comprises the pneumatic passage, wherein the pneumatic passage at least partially extends in a rotation center of the surface plate (figure 4, element 26a being the ‘pneumatic passage’; column 4, lines 8 – 13).
As to claim 9, Moore teaches that a rotary seal is provided between an end of the pneumatic passage of the surface plate and the driving motor so that the pneumatic passage is kept in a state of being sealed from the outside (figure 6, element 26b being the ‘rotary seal’; column 6, lines 60 – 63).
As to claim 10, Moore teaches that the plurality of the space parts are symmetrically arranged with respect to a center of the chucking film (figure 6, elements 24; column 3, lines 11 – 15).
As to claim 11, Moore teaches that the pressure adjuster is configured to apply a positive pressure to separate the substrate from the chucking film my making the chucking film convex upward (figure 6, element 50; column 7, lines 17 – 20).
As to claim 12, Moore does not teach the surface plate comprising a plurality of lift pins. Bottema further teaches that an edge of the surface plate is provided with a lift pin for lifting the chucking film upward (figure 3, element 46 being the ‘lift pin’; paragraphs 20 and 34). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the substrate chuck of Moore with a lift pin, as taught by Bottema, because Bottema teaches that the lift pin provides the benefit of releasing the substrate from the substrate chuck (paragraph 34).
Examiner recognizes that Bottema teaches the use of one lift pin, rather than a plurality of the lift pins. It is further the position of the Examiner that it would have been further obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the substrate chuck of Moore with a plurality of the lift pins of Bottema, because one skilled in the art would have recognized that use of a plurality of the lift pins would provide a further benefit of more easily releasing the substrate from the substrate chuck, as taught by Deng (paragraph 34).
As to claim 14, Bottema further teaches that the monitoring sensor is elastically supported by a spring and comes into contact with a bottom surface of the chucking film and is configured to sense the amount of the downward convex displacement (figure 3, element 42 being the ‘spring’; paragraphs 20 and 32).
As to claim 15, Moore teaches a substrate scrubbing apparatus (abstract), comprising: the substrate chuck according to claim 1 (see discussion of claim 1 above); and a scrubbing unit mounted on an upper surface of the chucking film of the substrate chuck and configured to scrub an upper surface of the substrate (figure 6, elements 12, 14, and 16 being the ‘scrubbing unit’; column 2, lines 51 – 56).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues, on pages 7 – 8, that Bottema does not teach a ‘monitoring system configured to detect a downward convex displacement at a space part of a chucking film,’ as recited by claim 1. Examiner disagrees. Examiner notes that this can be found because Bottema teaches that, when a substrate is placed on the chucking film and a pressure adjuster applies a negative pressure, the chucking film forms a downward convex displacement and becomes affixed to the substrate (figure 3, elements 22 and 32; paragraphs 21 – 23). Bottema further teaches that the monitoring system is configured to detect the specific instance of the substrate being affixed to the chucking film (figure 3, elements 46 and 32; paragraph 22). It is the position of the Examiner that the substrate becomes affixed to the chucking film only when the chucking films forms the downward convex displacement. Therefore, the monitoring system further acts to detect the downward convex displacement of the chucking film, as well as the affixing of the substrate to the chucking film. Applicant argues that the ‘monitoring system’ of Bottema does not measure the amount of ‘downward convex displacement’ in the chucking film. While Examiner acknowledges this, Examiner notes that the limitations of the claim do not require the ‘monitoring system’ measure an amount of the ‘downward convex displacement’ of the chucking film. The limitations of the claim merely require the ‘monitoring system’ be configured “to detect” the presence of the ‘downward convex displacement’ of the chucking film.
Applicant further argues, on pages 8 – 9, that the ‘pressure adjuster’ of Moore is not configured to ‘control a magnitude of negative pressure applied to the space part based on an amount of the downward convex displacement of the chucking film,’ as recited by claim 1. Examiner again disagrees. Moore teaches that the pressure adjuster is configured to create a given amount of vacuum in the space part to cause the ‘downward convex displacement’ in the chucking film (figures 3 and 6, elements 50, 24 and 22; column 3, lines 11 – 42). Therefore, when the downward convex displacement is formed in the chucking film by a pressure adjuster, it is the position of the Examiner that the pressure adjuster of Moore may either be turned off, such that the pressure adjuster no longer creates the vacuum in the at least one space part, or the amount of vacuum created by the pressure adjuster can be decreased. In reaching this conclusion, Examiner notes that the claim is directed towards the ‘substrate chuck’ itself, rather than a method of ‘operating a substrate chuck,’ such that the claimed functions of the pressure adjuster amount to functional language. Because the ‘pressure adjuster’ of Moore is configured to use in the recited manner, the ‘pressure adjuster’ of Moore teaches the given limitation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (EST).
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726