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 Species I-Figure 8, Species A-Figure 11 in the reply filed on April 21, 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I-Figure 1 in the reply filed on September 1, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species III can be used with Species I. This is not found persuasive because the search and examination of the entire application would place a serious burden on the Examiner since the search required for the features of the non-elected species is not co-extensive with the search required for the features of the elected species. In other words, the invention of claim 1 does not operate with an overlay measurement apparatus and hence fails to require the search of an overlay measurement apparatus.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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: lift members in claims 7 and 19-20.
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.
Paragraph [0068] of the specification indicates that the lift members 420a may be pins.
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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakasaki et al. (U.S. 2010/0212832) in view of Okita et al. (U.S. 2011/0111601).
Referring to Figures 18-19 and paragraphs [0082]-[0106], Wakasaki et al. disclose a substrate supporting apparatus comprising: a stage table 2 configured to support a substrate 4 and including a plurality of openings (Figs. 1 & 18, par.[0063]); a plurality of lift pins 20 disposed to be vertically movable through the plurality of openings and configured to support the substrate (pars.[0083]-[0084]); a lift support 28 positioned outside the stage table from a plan view and vertically movable to support the substrate (pars.[0083]-[0084]); and an actuator (i.e. up and down) configured to vertically actuate the plurality of lift pins and the lift support so as to load the substrate onto the stage table ((pars. [0083]-[0084]), i.e. movable from storage position to protrusion position).
PNG
media_image1.png
623
997
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wakasaki et al. is silent on a controller configured to control the actuator.
Referring to Figure 1 and paragraph [0126], Okita et al. teach a substrate supporting apparatus that uses a controller configured to control the actuator in order to optimize positioning of the substrate and reduce damage and positional deviation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Wakasaki et al. with a controller configured to control the actuator as taught by Okita et al. in order to optimize positioning the substrate and reduce damage and positional deviation. The resulting apparatus of Wakasaki et al. in view of Okita et al would yield a controller configured to control the actuator.
With respect to claim 4, the substrate supporting apparatus of Wakasaki et al. further includes wherein the stage table 2 includes a plurality of protrusions (i.e. protrusions are located between the holes 6a) formed on an upper surface of the stage table to support the substrate 4 (Fig. 18, par.[0077]).
With respect to claim 5, the substrate supporting apparatus of Wakasaki et al. further includes wherein the plurality of protrusions are disposed at a certain pitch with respect to each other on the upper surface of the stage table 2 (Fig. 18, par.[0077]).
With respect to claim 6, the substrate supporting apparatus of Wakasaki et al. further includes wherein the actuator is configured to lower the plurality of lift pins 20 until an upper surface of each of the plurality of lift pins is at least equal to a height of an upper surface of the stage table 2 (par.[0106]).
With respect to claim 7, the substrate supporting apparatus of Wakasaki et al. further includes wherein: the lift support 28 includes a plurality of lift members, and the plurality of lift members are disposed spaced apart from each other along a circumference of the stage table 2 (Figs. 1 &18).
With respect to claim 8, the substrate supporting apparatus of Wakasaki et al. in view of Okita et al. further includes wherein the actuator 22, 32 is configured to independently actuate a vertical movement of the plurality of lift pins and the lift support (Okita et al.-Fig. 1, par.[0126]).
With respect to claim 9, the substrate supporting apparatus of Wakasaki et al. further includes wherein a shape of an upper surface of the lift support 28 from a horizontal cross section is a circular shape (Fig. 18).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakasaki et al. (U.S. 2010/0212832) in view of Okita et al. (U.S. 2011/0111601) as applied to claims 1 and 4-9 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (U.S. 2005/0018377).
The teachings of Wakasaki et al. in view of Okita et al. have been discussed above.
Wakasaki et al. in view of Okita et al. failed to teach wherein the lift support includes a dielectric positioned to contact and support the substrate and an electrode connected to a power source configured to generate electrostatic force for fixing the substrate loaded onto an upper surface of the stage table.
Referring to Figure 5 and paragraph [0047], Cho et al. teach a substrate supporting apparatus wherein the lift support 35 includes a dielectric 20a, 20b positioned to contact and support the substrate and an electrode 35a connected to a power source 75 configured to generate electrostatic force for fixing the substrate loaded onto an upper surface of the stage table 30. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Wakasaki et al. in view of Okita et al. as taught by Cho et al. with lift support includes a dielectric positioned to contact and support the substrate and an electrode connected to a power source configured to generate electrostatic force for fixing the substrate loaded onto an upper surface of the stage table. The resulting apparatus of Wakasaki et al. in view of Okita et al. and Cho et al. would have yield wherein the lift support includes a dielectric positioned to contact and support the substrate and an electrode connected to a power source configured to generate electrostatic force for fixing the substrate loaded onto an upper surface of the stage table.
With respect to claim 3, the substrate supporting apparatus of Wakasaki et al. in view of Okita et al. and Cho et al. further includes wherein the electrode 35a is buried in the dielectric 20a, 20b (Cho et al.-Fig.5).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakasaki et al. (U.S. 2010/0212832) in view of Okita et al. (U.S. 2011/0111601) as applied to claims 1 and 4-9 above, and further in view of Osada et al. (U.S. 5,569,350).
The teachings of Wakasaki et al. in view of Okita et al. have been discussed above.
Wakasaki et al. in view of Okita et al. is silent on wherein an area of an upper surface of the lift support is larger than an area of an upper surface of each of the plurality of lift pins.
Referring to Figure 14a and column 7, lines 53-65, Osada et al. teach a substrate processing apparatus wherein an area of an upper surface of the lift support 9b, 10 to be larger than an area of an upper surface of each of the plurality of lift pins 2 since it is a conventionally known configuration used to remove the substrate after processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Wakasaki et al. in view of Okita et al. with wherein an area of an upper surface of the lift support to be larger than an area of an upper surface of each of the plurality of lift pins as taught by Osada et al. since it is a conventionally known configuration used to remove the substrate after processing. The resulting apparatus of Wakasaki et al. in view of Okita et al. would yield wherein an area of an upper surface of the lift support is larger than an area of an upper surface of each of the plurality of lift pins. Additionally, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed lift support and a lift support having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art lift support, the claimed lift support was not patentably distinct from the prior art lift support (MPEP 2144.04 IVA).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakasaki et al. (U.S. 2010/0212832) in view of Okita et al. (U.S. 2011/0111601), Cho et al. (U.S. 2005/0018377), and Osada et al. (U.S. 5,569,350).
Referring to Figures 18-19 and paragraphs [0082]-[0106], Wakasaki et al. teach a substrate supporting apparatus comprising: a stage table 2 configured to support a substrate 4 and including a plurality of openings (Figs. 1 & 18, par.[0063]); a plurality of lift pins 20 disposed to be vertically movable through the plurality of openings and configured to support the substrate (pars.[0083]-[0084]); a plurality of lift members 28 positioned outside the stage table from a plan view, disposed spaced apart from each other along a circumference of the stage table, and vertically movable to support the substrate(pars.[0083]-[0084]); an actuator (i.e. up and down) configured to control a vertical movement of the plurality of lift pins and the plurality of lift members so as to load the substrate onto the stage table (pars. [0083]-[0084]); wherein the stage table 2 comprises a plurality of protrusions disposed at a certain pitch on the upper surface of the stage table to support the substrate (i.e. protrusions are located between the holes 6a), wherein the actuator is configured to lower the plurality of lift pins until an upper surface of each of the plurality of lift pins is at least equal to a height of the upper surface of the stage table, and independently actuate the vertical movement of the plurality of lift pins and the plurality of lift members ((pars. [0083]-[0084]), i.e. movable from storage position to protrusion position), and wherein a horizontal cross sectional shape of an upper surface of each lift member is a circular or bow shape (Fig. 18).
Wakasaki et al. is silent on a controller configured to control the actuator.
Referring to Figure 1 and paragraph [0126], Okita et al. teach a substrate supporting apparatus that uses a controller configured to control the actuator in order to optimize positioning of the substrate and reduce damage and positional deviation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Wakasaki et al. with a controller configured to control the actuator as taught by Okita et al. in order to optimize positioning the substrate and reduce damage and positional deviation. The resulting apparatus of Wakasaki et al. in view of Okita et al would yield a controller configured to control the actuator.
Wakasaki et al. fail to teach wherein each lift member includes a dielectric positioned to contact and support the substrate and an electrode buried in the dielectric and connected to a power source configured to generate electrostatic force for fixing the substrate loaded onto an upper surface of the stage table.
Referring to Figure 5 and paragraph [0047], Cho et al. teach a substrate supporting apparatus wherein the lift member 35 includes a dielectric 20a, 20b positioned to contact and support the substrate and an electrode 35a buried in the dielectric and connected to a power source 75 configured to generate electrostatic force for fixing the substrate loaded onto an upper surface of the stage table 30. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Wakasaki et al. in view of Okita et al. as taught by Cho et al. with lift member includes a dielectric positioned to contact and support the substrate and an electrode buried in the dielectric and connected to a power source configured to generate electrostatic force for fixing the substrate loaded onto an upper surface of the stage table. The resulting apparatus of Wakasaki et al. in view of Okita et al. and Cho et al. would have yield wherein each lift member includes a dielectric positioned to contact and support the substrate and an electrode buried in the dielectric and connected to a power source configured to generate electrostatic force for fixing the substrate loaded onto an upper surface of the stage table.
Wakasaki et al. in view of Okita et al. is silent on wherein an area of an upper surface of each lift member is larger than an area of an upper surface of each of the plurality of lift pins.
Referring to Figure 14a and column 7, lines 53-65, Osada et al. teach a substrate processing apparatus wherein an area of an upper surface of the lift member 9b, 10 to be larger than an area of an upper surface of each of the plurality of lift pins 2 since it is a conventionally known configuration used to remove the substrate after processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Wakasaki et al. in view of Okita et al. with wherein an area of an upper surface of the lift member to be larger than an area of an upper surface of each of the plurality of lift pins as taught by Osada et al. since it is a conventionally known configuration used to remove the substrate after processing. The resulting apparatus of Wakasaki et al. in view of Okita et al. would yield wherein an area of an upper surface of each lift member is larger than an area of an upper surface of each of the plurality of lift pins. Additionally, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed lift support and a lift support having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art lift support, the claimed lift support was not patentably distinct from the prior art lift support (MPEP 2144.04 IVA).
With respect to claim 20, the substrate supporting apparatus of Wakasaki et al. in view of Okita et al. further includes wherein: the controller 9 is configured to: control the actuator 32 to support the substrate descending toward the stage table by first lifting the plurality of lift pins 31, and then to support the substrate by lifting the plurality of lift members 21, control the actuator 22, 32 to subsequently support the substrate descending toward the stage table by first lowering the plurality of lift pins 31, and then by lowering the plurality of lift members 21, and control the actuator 22, 32 to stop the lowering of the plurality of lift pins 31 when a height of an upper surface of each lift pin is equal to a height of the upper surface of the stage table 12 (Wakasaki et al.-Figures 18-19 and paragraphs [0082]-[0106], Okita et al.-Figure 1 and paragraphs [0126]-[0138]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hur et al.’438, Harashima et al.’824, and Amikura et al.’651 teach a lift support and plurality of lift pins. Cox et al.’259 and Kato’282 teach a movable echuck ring. So et al.’052 and Chen et al.’743 teach a plurality of lift pins. Lee et al.’367 teach various shaped lift pins. Kawawa’702 teach controllable lift pins. Koshimizu’524 and Cui et al.’577 teach a support ring with echuck. Sada’546 teaches protrusion on the echuck.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle CROWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-1432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/Michelle CROWELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights