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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 9/9/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/9/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“a control device that controls” has improper spacing
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
a control device that controls a flatness between the plurality of electrostatic chucks in claim 1.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a control device that controls a flatness between the plurality of electrostatic chucks”. This claim limitation is interpretated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but lacks corresponding structure in the specification. Appropriate correction or clarification is required. Claims 2-10 are rejected due to dependency to claim 1.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites “a control device that controls a flatness between the plurality of electrostatic chucks” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The instant specification repeats the functionality of the control device but never explicitly disclose what the structure of the control device is. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted to be any control unit capable of performing the function. Claims 2-10 are rejected due to dependency to claim 1.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al. (CN 112666797A, hereinafter Takahashi).
Per independent claim 1:
Takahashi discloses a deposition apparatus (see title and abstract, exposure device) comprising:
a plate (Fig. 2, stage base 21 and substrate holding portion 220);
a plurality of electrostatic chucks (Fig. 2, chucks 230) including:
a first surface on which the plate is disposed (see annotated Fig. 2); and
a second surface on which a substrate is supported (see annotated Fig. 2); and
a control device that controls a flatness between the plurality of electrostatic chucks (a control unit 70 controls each part of the exposure device the control part 70 is may be realized by a computer, see page 5, lines 1-5; control part 70 is configured to control each of the plurality of adjustment parts 240 in order to make the substrate holding surface flat, see page 7, lines 41-45), wherein
each of the plurality of electrostatic chucks includes a plurality of driving shafts disposed through an area of an edge of the first surface of each of the plurality of electrostatic chucks, (see annotated Fig. 2, also see page 5, lines 33-55 which discloses that the adjustment parts 240 include a driving movable part and driving actuator); and
PNG
media_image1.png
572
900
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the control device controls the flatness between the plurality of electrostatic chucks through the plurality of driving shafts by measuring a height deviation between the plurality of electrostatic chucks (see page 5, lines 27-31 which discloses a height sensor 42 for measuring the flatness of the substrate holding part 230; see page 7, lines 41-45 which discloses the control part 70 which uses data from the height sensor 42 to adjust the flatness of the substrate holding surface).
Note that the claimed “controlling a flatness between the plurality of electrostatic chucks…by measuring a height deviation…” is an intended use of the control device. Takahashi discloses the same claimed structures and is therefore fully capable of performing the intended use. Further, Fig. 2 shows a plurality of electrostatic chucks 230 holding a single substrate and since the height sensor is to ensure that the substrate holding surface is completely flat, both electrostatic chucks would have to be at the same height in order to hold the single substrate at a flat level, thus meeting the claimed “controls the flatness between the plurality of electrostatic chucks…”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (CN 112666797A, hereinafter Takahashi) in view of Bhatnagar et al. (US 2004/0231706, hereinafter Bhatnagar).
Per claim 2, Takahashi discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the plurality of electrostatic chucks may be 4 (see Fig. 3) and the material of the electrostatic chuck may be aluminum or ceramics (page 2, lines 9-10). Takahashi does not disclose that the first and third electrostatic chuck include a metal material and the second electrostatic chuck includes a ceramic material.
Bhatnagar discloses that electrostatic chucks can comprise a ceramic over a metal base ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to have formed each of the electrostatic chucks of Takahashi such that it is a combination of ceramic over a metal base as taught by Bhatnagar. One would have been motivated to do so because Takahashi discloses either metal or ceramic are suitable materials for the electrostatic chuck and Bhatnagar discloses it is further known to use a combination of both materials when forming electrostatic chuck, thereby establishing predictability with a reasonable expectation of success.
The combination of Takahashi/Bhatnagar sets forth an electrostatic chuck which uses both metal and ceramics, thus meeting the claimed limitation of the first and third electrostatic chuck include a metal material and the second electrostatic chuck includes a ceramic material.
Per claim 3, see Fig. 2 and Fig. 6-7 of Takahashi. Fig. 7 shows that the chuck’s driving shafts 240 are located on the edge area of the chuck.
Per claims 4-5, see annotated Fig. 7 of Takahashi below. Fig. 7 can be interpreted to be the third electrostatic chuck with first and second driving shafts with the fifth shaft disposed between the first and second driving shafts. Fig. 7 can similarly used to show a first electrostatic chuck with the first, fifth and second shafts replaced to show second, sixth, and fourth shafts.
PNG
media_image2.png
544
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Per claim 6, Takahashi further teaches the deposition apparatus includes a deposition mask M which corresponds to a center area to the substrate and a mask frame (mask mounting base 31) disposed in an area corresponding to the edge area below the substrate. Regarding “the center area below the substrate”, this appears to be a limitation on the spatial orientation of the mask and the chuck. However, this is an intended use of the apparatus since the spatial orientation of what’s on top and what’s on bottom does not structurally differentiate the claimed invention and the prior art.
Per claim 8, Takahashi discloses the control part 70 being configured to control each of the plurality of adjustment parts 240 (page 7, 41-42).
Per claim 9, Takahashi discloses that a height sensor 42 is used to measure the support adjustment portion 240 or its vicinity of each adjustment portion (page 7, 47 to 60). With regards to the sensor detects a contact with the substrate and measures a heigh deviation based on a contact order is an intended use of the sensor and control system. Takahashi/Bhatnagar disclose the same height measurement sensor and a computer control system and is therefore fully capable of being programmed to operate in the intended manner as claimed.
Takahashi does not teach a sensor for each of the plurality of electrostatic chucks but rather discloses that the mounting table can be moved so that the sensor can be used to detect all the areas with the adjustment portion (page 7, 59-60).
However, the mere duplication of parts is prima facie obviousness (see MPEP 2144.04, VI. B.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used a plurality of height sensors associated with each electrostatic chuck instead of one heigh sensor in order to simultaneously measure all of the adjustment portions located on each electrostatic chuck rather than moving the mountain table across a single sensor. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the speed of height deviation measurement (plurality of sensors measured simultaneously).
Per claim 10, this an intended use limitation which does not structurally differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art. Takahashi/Bhatnagar disclose a computer control system with the same driving shafts located in the same areas as instantly claimed and is therefore fully capable of carrying out the claimed intended use.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (CN 112666797A, hereinafter Takahashi) in view of Bhatnagar et al. (US 2004/0231706, hereinafter Bhatnagar) and further in view of Groechel et al. (US 2021/0183657, hereinafter Groechel)
Per claim 7, Takahashi/Bhatnagar disclose all the limitations of claim 3 but do not the limitations recited in claim 7. However, Takahashi discloses that the substrate stage 20 may be driven in the X, Y and Z direction (page 4, 52-60).
Groechel et al. discloses a substrate support in Fig. 3A ([0029]) which can be a substrate support 424 such as that disclosed in Fig. 4 ([0029]) wherein the substrate support 424 may be an electrostatic chuck ([0044]). The substrate support may be moved in the vertical direction through the use of a lift mechanism 413 (Fig. 4, [0044]). The lift mechanism 413 is coupled to the support shaft 412 which is connected to an area of the support 424 corresponding to the center area of substrate 422 (Fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added the vertical support shaft and lift mechanism of Groechel to the central portion of substrate stage 20 of Takahashi in order to provide vertical movement. One would have been motivated to do so because Takahashi desires vertical movement of the substrate plate carrying the electrostatic chuck and Goerchel discloses a known structure for moving an electrostatic chuck carrying plate vertically.
Since the vertical lift mechanism will be added to the bottom of substrate stage 20 of Takahashi, the plurality of driving shaft would pass through at least a portion of the stage (passes through substrate holding portion base 220), while avoiding the area that includes the transfer unit (the area being the bottom of stage base 21).
Conclusion
Relevant but not applied prior art:
Park (US 2008/0047651) discloses a plurality of electrostatic chuck (see Fig. 9) having a plurality of plate alignment units 750 ([0064]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAO SI ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5343. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/XIAO S ZHAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744