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 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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. [US 10,274,844 B1] in view of Higuchi et al. [US 5,789,843 A].
Regarding claims 1, 14, 23 and 25, Chung et al. discloses a system for exchanging a reticle in a semiconductor processing system (Fig. 1, see also Col. 3 lines 43-53), the system for exchanging the reticle comprising:
a reticle exchange device having a seat for a reticle (as shown in Figs. 7 and 10-16); and
an electrostatic chuck (300) having one or more electrodes for electrostatically clamping the reticle (200); and a levitation mechanism to levitate the reticle prior to clamping by the electrostatic chuck (Col. 7 lines 6-25, Col. 8 lines 43-65 and Col. 10 lines 33-65 teaches levitating the reticle to the electrostatic chuck, see also Figs. 7 and 10-16).
Chung et al. does not teach a plurality of levitation electrodes to electrostatically levitate the reticle prior to clamping by the electrostatic chuck and a control circuit configured to modulate voltage of different ones of the levitation electrodes to control position and orientation of the reticle in six degrees of freedom while maintaining substantially net zero charge on the reticle.
However, Higuchi et al. discloses an electrostatic levitating electrode (10) is split into four equal segments for levitating and positioning an object and comprising displacement sensors and a controller in a feedback system. Specifically, Higuchi et al. discloses a controller for controlling voltage applied to the electrostatic levitating electrode, wherein the levitated body is attracted, held and conveyed without contact by electrostatic attraction force owing to application of voltage to the electrostatic levitating electrode, wherein the net potential of the levitated body are at zero volts (as shown in Figs. 4-9, see also Col. 2 lines 24-Col. 7 lines 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an electrostatic levitating electrode system, as taught by Higuchi et al. in the system of Chung et al. for levitating the reticle prior to clamping by the electrostatic chuck and control position and orientation of the reticle in six degrees of freedom while maintaining substantially net zero charge on the reticle, because such a modification provides a suitable alternative levitation mechanism, making it possible to convey a levitated body with accuracy and without damage to electrodes and also prevents the generation of dust (Col. 2 lines 1-7 and Col. 3 lines 28-31 of Higuchi et al.).
Regarding claims 2-13, 15-22 and 24, Chung et al. discloses in view of Higuchi et al. discloses wherein the one or more levitation electrodes are positioned on the electrostatic chuck, wherein the one or more levitation electrodes are configured to also act as clamping electrodes, wherein the electrodes are configured to control motion trajectory, position, shape, contact location, contact forces, and orientation of the reticle, wherein the electrodes are configured to control position and orientation of the reticle with six degrees of freedom, wherein the electrodes are configured to shape the reticle so that a center area of the reticle is closer to the electrostatic chuck than one or more corners of the reticle during levitation, further comprising one or more sensors to detect a position and orientation of the reticle, wherein the one or more sensors and the electrodes are the same, wherein the electrodes comprise an electrode to control horizontal positioning of the reticle, an electrode to control vertical positioning of the reticle, and/or an electrode to control a shape of the reticle, wherein the one or more sensors are configured to detect the position of and orientation of the reticle in six degrees of freedom and/or detect a shape of the reticle, wherein the one or more electrodes are configured to dampen lateral motion of the reticle during levitation, further comprising: one or more motors coupled to the electrostatic chuck to control a position of the electrostatic chuck; and a control circuit coupled to control the one or more motors, wherein the control circuit is configured to dampen lateral motion of the reticle during levitation by controlling the position of the electrostatic chuck (in the combination of the electrostatic chuck of Chung et al. and the electrostatic levitating and displacement sensors and a controller in a feedback system of Higuchi et al., see Figs. 7 and 10-16 of Chung et al. and Figs. 4-9 and Col. 4 lines 42- Col. 6 lines 65 of Higuchi et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the applied reference does not teach a control circuit configured to modulate voltage of different ones of the levitation electrodes to control position and orientation of the reticle in six degrees of freedom while maintaining substantially net zero charge on the reticle, see pages 9-10 of the remarks.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this instance, Chung et al. discloses an lithographic apparatus comprising electrostatic reticle and a substrate stages for fabricating integrated circuits on a semiconductor wafer comprising a reticle levitating system (Col. 7 lines 6-25, Col. 8 lines 43-65 and Col. 10 lines 33-65 teaches levitating the reticle to the electrostatic chuck, see also Figs. 7 and 10-16). Higuchi et al. is relied upon to disclose a suitable alternation electrostatic levitating electrode system wherein a plurality of levitation electrodes to electrostatically levitate the reticle prior to clamping by the electrostatic chuck; and a control circuit configured to modulate voltage of different ones of the levitation electrodes to control position and orientation of the reticle in six degrees of freedom while maintaining substantially net zero charge on the reticle. (as shown in Figs. 4-9, see also Col. 2 lines 24-Col. 7 lines 11).
As such, the applicant arguments are not persuasive and the rejection under 35 USC § 103 is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DEORAM PERSAUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
/DEORAM PERSAUD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882