DETAILED ACTION
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 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miwa et al. [US 2015/0021944]
For claim 45, Miwa teaches a gripper (see Fig. 1-4) for an object handler, the gripper comprising:
an engaging surface (232 and 234, see Figs. 1-4) for engaging a surface of an object,
a first channel (430) connected to a first outlet (235), the first outlet arranged adjacent the engaging surface and configured to operate, during use, as a vacuum clamp arranged to secure the engaging surface to the surface of the object (see [0072]),
a second channel (630) arranged to be connected to a pressure source,
at least one second outlet (233) arranged adjacent to the engaging surface and connected to the second channel, each at least one second outlet having an asymmetric shape (U-shaped, asymmetric about the X axis, see Fig. 2).
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, 4, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 19, 24, 33-36, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucher et al. [US 3,517,958] in view of Nakaharada et al. [US 2007/0195297].
For claims 1, 4, 15, and 19, Boucher teaches a gripper (see Figs. 1-4) for an object handler, the gripper comprising:
an engaging surface (wafer engagement platform 30) for engaging a surface (outline of wafer 78) of an object,
a first channel (pathway connecting hole 38 to the vacuum outlet 46) connected to a first outlet (38), the first outlet arranged adjacent the engaging surface and being configured to operate, during use, as a vacuum clamp arranged to secure the engaging surface to the surface of the object (interior of 30 kept at vacuum, see col. 2 lines 64-72),
a second channel (pathway connecting either 58 or 56 to the air inlet 62) arranged to be connected to a pressure source, and at least one second outlet (52, 54, 56, 58) arranged adjacent to the engaging surface and connected to the second channel (see Fig. 2 and 4), the at least one second outlet collectively having a width substantially equal to or larger than a width of the engaging surface (the width of 52 and 54 relative to the width of rim 30, see Figs. 2 and 4), and
a third channel (pathway connecting the other of either 58 or 56 to the air inlet 62) having at least one third outlet connected thereto, the third outlet located adjacent to the at least one second outlet of the second channel (see Figs. 2 and 4).
Boucher fails to teach the second channel or the third channel is a negative pressure line configured to apply suction for removal of fluid and the second channel is connected to a wet vacuum supply.
Nakaharada teaches the second channel or the third channel is a negative pressure line configured to apply suction for removal of fluid (port 83 connected to suction means 87, see [0077]) and the second channel is connected to a wet vacuum supply (removing liquid, see [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the wet vacuum as taught by Nakaharada in the outlets as taught by Boucher in order to capture liquid contaminants when carrying a substrate used in immersion lithography.
For claim 8, Boucher teaches the at least one second outlet is located between an outer edge of the gripper and the engaging surface of the gripper (see the relationship in Figs. 2 and 4).
For claim 10, Boucher teaches the at least one second outlet is arranged on a leading edge of the gripper (52 and 54 surrounds the gripper, see Figs. 2 and 4).
For claim 14, Boucher teaches the at least one second outlet is in the form of a groove (52).
For claim 17, Boucher teaches the third channel is a positive pressure line (pressured air exiting from plenum chamber 22 through the circumferential array of orifices 56 and 58, see col. 2 line 56- col. 3 line 2) configured to apply a repulsive force.
For claim 24, Boucher teaches the at least one third outlet is in the form of a groove (54).
For claim 33, Boucher teaches the gripper is used in a semiconductor manufacturing printer, but fails to explicitly teach a lithographic apparatus comprising the gripper.
Nakaharada teaches a lithographic apparatus (exposure unit B4, se Fig. 1 and [0058]) comprising the gripper.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the gripper of Boucher in a lithographic apparatus as taught by Nakaharada in order to reduce contamination attached to the substrate during transport.
For claim 34, Boucher teaches a method of holding an object, the method comprising: locating a gripper according of claim 1 in contact with an object (see Fig. 2), applying a first pressure through the second channel, and Boucher teaches applying a vacuum to operate a vacuum clamp to secure the object to the gripper (interior of 30 kept at vacuum, see col. 2 lines 64-72).
Boucher fails to teach locating a gripper according to claim 1 underneath an object and removing the first pressure through the second channel.
Nakaharada teaches locating a gripper according to claim 1 underneath an object (see Fig. 7) and removing the first pressure through the second channel (timing of applying and discounting the pressure via sources 85 and 87, see [0076]-[0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the gripper of Boucher underneath the substrate and stopping the pressure supply as taught by Nakaharada in order to grip the bottom of the substrate and reduce contamination of the patterned surface of the substrate and reducing the likelihood of spreading contamination during transfer.
For claim 35, Boucher teaches the gripper comprises a third channel (54), and further comprising applying a second pressure through the third channel (pressured air exiting from plenum chamber 22 through the circumferential array of orifices 56 and 58, see col. 2 line 56- col. 3 line 2).
For claim 36, Boucher fails to teach the first pressure and the second pressure are configured to cooperatively remove liquid.
Nakaharada teaches the first pressure and the second pressure are configured to cooperatively remove liquid (see [0074]-[0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the wet vacuum as taught by Nakaharada in the outlets as taught by Boucher in order to capture liquid contaminants when carrying a substrate used in immersion lithography.
For claim 41, Boucher fails to teach the pressure is configured to control a temperature of the object.
Nakaharada teaches the pressure is configured to control a temperature of the object (control of the liquid present on the substrate controls the temperature, see [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide pressure for liquid removal to control temperature as taught by Nakaharada in the outlet pressure as taught by Boucher in order to reduce thermal deformations caused my remaining liquid on the substrate due to immersion lithography.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucher in view of Yamaki et al. [JP 2010-146927].
For claim 9, Boucher fails to teach the at least one second outlet is arranged between the first outlet and the engaging surface of the gripper.
Yamaki teaches the at least one second outlet is arranged between the first outlet and the engaging surface of the gripper (outlet 15 between the outlet 16 and surface 14, see Figs. 5 and 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the location of the second channel as taught by Yamaki in the apparatus as taught by Boucher in order to further capture foreign particles within the engagement.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucher in view of Kim et al. [US 6,090,220].
Claims 2 and 16 did not previously depend from nor recite the subject matter of now canceled claim 3 that has been amended into claim 1. The previous rejection claims 2 and 16 is maintained and Kim relied upon to teach the amended subject matter of claim 1.
For claims 2 and 16, Boucher teaches a gripper (see Figs. 1-4) for an object handler, the gripper comprising:
an engaging surface (wafer engagement platform 30) for engaging a surface (outline of wafer 78) of an object,
a first channel (pathway connecting hole 38 to the vacuum outlet 46) connected to a first outlet (38), the first outlet arranged adjacent the engaging surface and being configured to operate, during use, as a vacuum clamp arranged to secure the engaging surface to the surface of the object (interior of 30 kept at vacuum, see col. 2 lines 64-72),
a second channel (pathway connecting either 58 or 56 to the air inlet 62) arranged to be connected to a pressure source, and at least one second outlet (52, 54, 56, 58) arranged adjacent to the engaging surface and connected to the second channel (see Fig. 2 and 4), the at least one second outlet collectively having a width substantially equal to or larger than a width of the engaging surface (the width of 52 and 54 relative to the width of rim 30, see Figs. 2 and 4), and
a third channel (pathway connecting the other of either 58 or 56 to the air inlet 62) having at least one third outlet connected thereto, the third outlet located adjacent to the at least one second outlet of the second channel (see Figs. 2 and 4).
Boucher fails to teach the second channel is configured to alternate between operation as a negative pressure line to apply suction for removal of a fluid, and operation as a positive pressure line and the third channel is configured to alternate between operation as a negative pressure line, and operation as a positive pressure line to apply a repulsive force to repel fluid.
Kim teaches a channel is configured to alternate between operation as a negative pressure line to apply suction for removal of a fluid, and operation as a positive pressure line to apply a repulsive force to repel fluid (channel 14 connected to vacuum source 17 to withdraw a gas or liquid or pressure source 16 provide a gas to remove moisture, see Figs. 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the alternate operation between pressure and vacuum as taught by Kim in the channels as taught by Boucher in order to provide for removing contaminants that may remain in the channel.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucher view of Nakaharada as applied to claim s 1 and 15 above, and in further view of Kim.
For claims 2 and 16, Boucher fails to teach the second channel is configured to alternate between operation as a negative pressure line to apply suction for removal of a fluid, and operation as a positive pressure line and the third channel is configured to alternate between operation as a negative pressure line, and operation as a positive pressure line to apply a repulsive force to repel fluid.
Kim teaches a channel is configured to alternate between operation as a negative pressure line to apply suction for removal of a fluid, and operation as a positive pressure line to apply a repulsive force to repel fluid (channel 14 connected to vacuum source 17 to withdraw a gas or liquid or pressure source 16 provide a gas to remove moisture, see Figs. 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the alternate operation between pressure and vacuum as taught by Kim in the channels as taught by Boucher in order to provide for removing contaminants that may remain in the channel.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucher in view of Nakaharada as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Miwa.
For claim 42, Boucher fails to teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer readable instructions therein, the instructions, when executed by a computer system, configured to cause the computer system to carry out at least the method according to claim 34.
Miwa teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer readable instructions therein, the instructions, when executed by a computer system, configured to cause the computer system to carry out at least the method (the functions of the controller 100 are implemented by a CPU (central processing unit) operating according to a computer program, see [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the computer controlled method as taught by Kim the method and apparatus as taught by Boucher in order to automatically control the operation of the apparatus and reduce the likelihood of operator error.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaki in view of Tanno et al. [US 2006/0256316].
For claim 46, Yamaki teaches a gripper (see Figs. 7 and 8) for an object handler, the gripper comprising:
an engaging surface (14) for engaging a surface of an object;
a first outlet (19) arranged adjacent the engaging surface and configured to operate, during use, as a vacuum clamp arranged to secure the engaging surface to the surface of the object (the sealed space Ra including the vacuum suction port 19 can firmly hold the wafer, see page 5);
at least one second outlet (15 or 16) arranged adjacent to the engaging surface and configured to provide, during use, fluid transfer (blowing gas A or sucking foreign matter P, see page 5); and
at least one third outlet (the other of 15 or 16) arranged adjacent to the engaging surface and configured to provide, during use, fluid transfer (blowing gas A or sucking foreign matter P, see page 5), and
wherein the at least one second outlet provides, during use, a different fluid transfer than the at least third outlet (blowing gas A and sucking foreign matter P, see page 5).
Yamaki fails to teach each at least one second outlet has a different shape than each at least one third outlet and/or the at least one second outlet collectively has a different shape than the at least one third outlet collectively.
Tanno teaches each at least one second outlet has a different shape than each at least one third outlet and/or the at least one second outlet collectively has a different shape than the at least one third outlet collectively (oval shape of supply holes 32 and circle shape of blow holes 31, see Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the different shapes between the blow and suction holes as taught by Tanno in the outlets as taught by Yamaki depending on the desired flow rate at the openings and desired purpose of the opening in the flow transfer system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pages 6-7, regarding claim 1, that orifices 56 and 58 Boucher are positive pressure sources to dislodge contaminants from the substrate and would not be operable for its intended purpose if the orifices were attached to a negative source in the manner as taught by Nakaharada.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In the combination, Nakaharada does not remove the positive pressure source Boucher, but increases the functionality by collecting contamination from negative source 87 while also maintaining a positive source 85 for removing liquid contamination at the same time (see [0075]).
The applicant argues on pages 8 and 9, regarding claims 2 and 16, that Kim fails to cure the deficiencies of amended claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Kim teaches in Fig. 4 providing a gas from unit 16 to port 13 or providing a vacuum by unit 17 to port 13 in order to remove contamination from the substrate prior to clamping via a port 13.
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 Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Steven H Whitesell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights