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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/28/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed October 28, 2025 have been entered. Accordingly, claims 21-40 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-20 are cancelled by applicant. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 21, 30, and 38. The previous double patenting rejection is maintained and updated to addressed the newly presented claims. The previous 103 rejections has been modified due to applicant’s amendments.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 27 and 35, the following claim limitation has been interpreted as known term in the art in accordance to article “Merriam Webster” (NPL Reference):
Claim limitation “in the form of an annulus” is to be interpreted as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
339
1263
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-23, 29-31, 37-38, and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,664,264 in view of Noburu (CN 101145536).
A comparison of the subject matter of claim 21 of the instant application with the claim 13 of the Patent shows the following:
Instant Application: 18/305,925
US Patent No. 11,664,264
Claim 21:
A support table configured to support a substrate, the support table comprising:
Claim 13:
A support table configured to support a substrate, the support table comprising:
a base surface having at least 10 burls configured to support the substrate;
a base surface having at least 10 burls;
a central region;
a central region having at least one gas flow opening configured to extract gas from a gap between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table;
an intermediate region surrounding the central region;
an intermediate region radially outward of the central region, the intermediate region having at least one gas flow opening configured to extract gas from a gap between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table;
an outer region surrounding the central and intermediate regions;
an outer region radially outward of the intermediate region, the outer region having at least one gas flow opening configured to extract gas from a gap between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table;
a plurality of gas flow openings configured to extract gas from a gap between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table;
Claim 13: ll. 16-19, ll.21-24, and ll. 26-29: at least one gas flow opening configured to extract gas from a gap between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table;
a first wall protruding away from the gas flow openings and surrounding the central region, and at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the central region;
a second wall protruding away from the gas flow openings and surrounding the intermediate and central regions, the first wall, and at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the intermediate region; and
a third wall protruding away from the gas flow openings and surrounding the outer, intermediate and central regions, at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the outer region, the first and second walls, and the plurality of gas flow openings.
Claim 13: ll. 30-43:
a seal around the burls and around the at least one gas flow opening in each of the central, intermediate and outer regions, the seal in the form of one or more protrusions surrounding the burls, the one or more protrusions each having a distal end at a different distance from the base surface than distal ends of the burls, the one or more protrusions configured to restrict a majority of flow of fluid, coming from an environment outward of the substrate, between the substrate, when supported on the support table, and the base surface toward the central region, and each of the one or more protrusions located outward, relative to a central portion of the support table, of each of the burls, of the central region and of each of the plurality of gas flow openings,
The claims of the instant application appear to have a similar scope of their corresponding clams in the patent, other than a slight re-wording of the claims, that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being obvious variants of each other.
Claim 13 of the patent case lacks one or more pressure sensors configured to measure a pressure in the gap and configured for use in control of extraction of gas by at least one of the gas flow.
The prior art of Noburu teaches it was known in the art to have a support table (Figures 1-3 and see also paragraph 0024) comprising a base surface (surface of element 5), a plurality of gas flow openings (element 6), and one or more pressure sensors (element 11 and see also paragraph 0027) configured to measure a pressure in the gap and configured for use in control of extraction of gas by at. least one of the gas flow (see paragraphs 0027-0028/0030-0031). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the support table in claim 13 of the patent case so that a user would necessarily be able to determined that adsorption is normal or make adjustments as disclosed by Noburu (see paragraphs 0030-0031).
A comparison of the subject matter of claim 22 of the instant application with the claim 13 of the Patent shows the following:
Instant Application: 18/305,925
US Patent No. 11,664,264
The support table of claim 21,
Claim 13: ll. 16-19, ll.21-24, and ll. 26-29:
wherein each of the central, intermediate and outer regions include at least one gas flow opening of the plurality of gas flow openings.
a central region having at least one gas flow opening;
the intermediate region having at least one gas flow opening;
the outer region having at least one gas flow opening;
The claims of the instant application appear to have a similar scope of their corresponding clams in the patent, other than a slight re-wording of the claims, that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being obvious variants of each other. Thus, since the subject matter of the Patent claim anticipates the broader subject matter of the instant claims, the aforementioned nonstatutory Double Patenting is deemed necessary.
A comparison of the subject matter of claim 23 of the instant application with the claim 13 of the Patent shows the following:
Instant Application: 18/305,925
US Patent No. 11,664,264
The support table of claim 21,
Claim 13: ll. 50-55:
configured such that gas extraction in the central region is independently controllable from gas extraction in the intermediate and outer regions.
wherein the support table is configured such that, for loading the substrate onto the support table: during a first phase of the loading, gas is extracted through the at least one gas flow opening in the central region and not through any gas flow opening in the intermediate region and in the outer region;
The claims of the instant application appear to have a similar scope of their corresponding clams in the patent, other than a slight re-wording of the claims, that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being obvious variants of each other. Thus, since the subject matter of the Patent claim anticipates the broader subject matter of the instant claims, the aforementioned nonstatutory Double Patenting is deemed necessary.
A comparison of the subject matter of claim 29 of the instant application with the claim 18 of the Patent shows the following:
Instant Application: 18/305,925
US Patent No. 11,664,264
A lithographic apparatus, comprising:
A lithographic apparatus, comprising:
a pattern transfer system configured to transfer a pattern onto a substrate; and the support table of claim 21.
a pattern transfer system configured to transfer a pattern onto a substrate; and the support table of claim 13.
The claims of the instant application appear to have a similar scope of their corresponding clams in the patent, other than a slight re-wording of the claims, that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being obvious variants of each other. Thus, since the subject matter of the Patent claim anticipates the broader subject matter of the instant claims, the aforementioned nonstatutory Double Patenting is deemed necessary.
A comparison of the subject matter of claim 30 of the instant application with the claim 13 of the Patent shows the following:
Instant Application: 18/305,925
US Patent No. 11,664,264
Claim 30:
A support table configured to support a substrate, the support table comprising:
Claim 13:
A support table configured to support a substrate, the support table comprising:
a base surface having at least 10 burls configured to support the substrate;
a base surface having at least 10 burls;
a central region comprising a first gas flow opening configured to extract gas from a gap between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table;
a central region having at least one gas flow opening configured to extract gas from a gap between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table;
an intermediate region surrounding the central region, the intermediate region comprising a second gas flow opening configured to extract gas from a gap between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table;
an intermediate region radially outward of the central region, the intermediate region having at least one gas flow opening configured to extract gas from a gap between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table;
an outer region surrounding the central and intermediate regions, the outer region comprising a third gas flow opening configured to extract gas from a gap between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table;
an outer region radially outward of the intermediate region, the outer region having at least one gas flow opening configured to extract gas from a gap between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table;
a first structure to form a seal between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table, the first structure surrounding the central region and at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the central region; a second structure to form a seal between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table, the second structure surrounding the intermediate and central regions, the first structure, and at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the intermediate region; and a third structure to form a seal between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table, the third structure surrounding the outer, intermediate and central regions, the first structure, the second structure, and at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the outer region.
Claim 13: ll. 30-43:
a seal around the burls and around the at least one gas flow opening in each of the central, intermediate and outer regions, the seal in the form of one or more protrusions surrounding the burls, the one or more protrusions each having a distal end at a different distance from the base surface than distal ends of the burls, the one or more protrusions configured to restrict a majority of flow of fluid, coming from an environment outward of the substrate, between the substrate, when supported on the support table, and the base surface toward the central region, and each of the one or more protrusions located outward, relative to a central portion of the support table, of each of the burls, of the central region and of each of the plurality of gas flow openings,
The claims of the instant application appear to have a similar scope of their corresponding clams in the patent, other than a slight re-wording of the claims, that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being obvious variants of each other.
Claim 13 of the patent case lacks one or more pressure sensors configured to measure a pressure in the gap and configured for use in control of extraction of gas by at least one of the gas flow.
The prior art of Noburu teaches it was known in the art to have a support table (Figures 1-3 and see also paragraph 0024) comprising a base surface (surface of element 5), a plurality of gas flow openings (element 6), and one or more pressure sensors (element 11 and see also paragraph 0027) configured to measure a pressure in the gap and configured for use in control of extraction of gas by at. least one of the gas flow (see paragraphs 0027-0028/0030-0031). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the support table in claim 13 of the patent case so that a user would necessarily be able to determined that adsorption is normal or make adjustments as disclosed by Noburu (see paragraphs 0030-0031).
A comparison of the subject matter of claim 31 of the instant application with the claim 13 of the Patent shows the following:
Instant Application: 18/305,925
US Patent No. 11,664,264
The support table of claim 30,
Claim 13: ll. 50-55:
configured such that gas extraction in the central region is independently controllable from gas extraction in the intermediate and outer regions.
wherein the support table is configured such that, for loading the substrate onto the support table: during a first phase of the loading, gas is extracted through the at least one gas flow opening in the central region and not through any gas flow opening in the intermediate region and in the outer region;
The claims of the instant application appear to have a similar scope of their corresponding clams in the patent, other than a slight re-wording of the claims, that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being obvious variants of each other. Thus, since the subject matter of the Patent claim anticipates the broader subject matter of the instant claims, the aforementioned nonstatutory Double Patenting is deemed necessary.
A comparison of the subject matter of claim 37 of the instant application with the claim 18 of the Patent shows the following:
Instant Application: 18/305,925
US Patent No. 11,664,264
A lithographic apparatus, comprising:
A lithographic apparatus, comprising:
a pattern transfer system configured to transfer a pattern onto a substrate; and the support table of claim 30.
a pattern transfer system configured to transfer a pattern onto a substrate; and the support table of claim 13.
The claims of the instant application appear to have a similar scope of their corresponding clams in the patent, other than a slight re-wording of the claims, that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being obvious variants of each other. Thus, since the subject matter of the Patent claim anticipates the broader subject matter of the instant claims, the aforementioned nonstatutory Double Patenting is deemed necessary.
A comparison of the subject matter of claim 38 of the instant application with the claim 13 of the Patent shows the following:
Instant Application: 18/305,925
US Patent No. 11,664,264
Claim 38:
A support table configured to support a substrate, the support table comprising:
Claim 13:
A support table configured to support a substrate, the support table comprising:
a base surface having at least 10 burls configured to support the substrate;
a base surface having at least 10 burls;
a central region;
a central region having at least one gas flow opening configured to extract gas from a gap between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table;
an intermediate region surrounding the central region;
an intermediate region radially outward of the central region, the intermediate region having at least one gas flow opening configured to extract gas from a gap between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table;
an outer region surrounding the central and intermediate regions;
an outer region radially outward of the intermediate region, the outer region having at least one gas flow opening configured to extract gas from a gap between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table;
a first structure to form a seal between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table, the first structure surrounding the central region and at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the central region; a second structure to form a seal between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table, the second structure surrounding the intermediate and central regions, the first structure, and at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the intermediate region; and a third structure to form a seal between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table, the third structure surrounding the outer, intermediate and central regions, the first structure, the second structure, at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the outer region and a plurality of gas flow openings configured to extract gas from a gap between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table.
Claim 13: ll. 30-43:
a seal around the burls and around the at least one gas flow opening in each of the central, intermediate and outer regions, the seal in the form of one or more protrusions surrounding the burls, the one or more protrusions each having a distal end at a different distance from the base surface than distal ends of the burls, the one or more protrusions configured to restrict a majority of flow of fluid, coming from an environment outward of the substrate, between the substrate, when supported on the support table, and the base surface toward the central region, and each of the one or more protrusions located outward, relative to a central portion of the support table, of each of the burls, of the central region and of each of the plurality of gas flow openings,
The claims of the instant application appear to have a similar scope of their corresponding clams in the patent, other than a slight re-wording of the claims, that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being obvious variants of each other.
Claim 13 of the patent case lacks one or more pressure sensors configured to measure a pressure in the gap and configured for use in control of extraction of gas by at least one of the gas flow.
The prior art of Noburu teaches it was known in the art to have a support table (Figures 1-3 and see also paragraph 0024) comprising a base surface (surface of element 5), a plurality of gas flow openings (element 6), and one or more pressure sensors (element 11 and see also paragraph 0027) configured to measure a pressure in the gap and configured for use in control of extraction of gas by at. least one of the gas flow (see paragraphs 0027-0028/0030-0031). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the support table in claim 13 of the patent case so that a user would necessarily be able to determined that adsorption is normal or make adjustments as disclosed by Noburu (see paragraphs 0030-0031).
A comparison of the subject matter of claim 40 of the instant application with the claim 18 of the Patent shows the following:
Instant Application: 18/305,925
US Patent No. 11,664,264
A lithographic apparatus, comprising:
A lithographic apparatus, comprising:
a pattern transfer system configured to transfer a pattern onto a substrate; and the support table of claim 38.
a pattern transfer system configured to transfer a pattern onto a substrate; and the support table of claim 13.
The claims of the instant application appear to have a similar scope of their corresponding clams in the patent, other than a slight re-wording of the claims, that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being obvious variants of each other. Thus, since the subject matter of the Patent claim anticipates the broader subject matter of the instant claims, the aforementioned nonstatutory Double Patenting is deemed necessary.
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.
Claims 21-22, 25-28, 30, 33-36, and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moro (US Pub. No. 2008/0171131) in view of Inoue (JP 2013187465) and Noburu (CN 101145536).
Regarding claim 21, Moro discloses: a support table (Figures 7A-8C and see also paragraph 0068-0072) configured to support a substrate (element W), the support table comprising:
a base surface (element 61) having at least 10 burls (element 81 and see also figure 7B showing at least 10 elements 81 (burls)) configured to support the substrate (see figure 7a and paragraph 0068);
a central region (see annotated figure 7B below Detail A);
an intermediate region (see annotated figure 7B below Detail B) surrounding the central region (see annotated figure below);
an outer region (see annotated figure 7B below Detail C) surrounding the central and intermediate regions (see annotated figure below);
a plurality of gas flow openings (element 83) configured to extract gas from a gap (element 80) between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table (see figure 7A and see also paragraph 0068/0071);
a first wall (element 82A) protruding away from the gas flow openings and surrounding the central region (see figures 7A-7B and annotated figure below);
a second wall (element 82B) protruding away from the gas flow openings and surrounding the intermediate and central regions, the first wall, and at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the intermediate region (see figures 7A-7B and annotated figure 7B below showing the second wall (element 82B) protruding away from the gas flow openings (element 83) and surrounding the intermediate and central regions (Detail A/B), the first wall (element 82A), and at least two of the burls (element 81) in the intermediate region); and
a third wall (element 82C) protruding away from the gas flow openings and surrounding the outer, intermediate and central regions, at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the outer region, the first and second walls, and the plurality of gas flow openings (see figures 7A-7B and annotated figure 7B below showing the third wall (element 82C) protruding away from the gas flow openings (element 83) and surrounding the outer, intermediate and central regions (Detail A/B/C), at least two of the burls (element 81) in the outer region the first and second walls (elements 82B/82A), and the plurality of gas flow openings (element 83)).
PNG
media_image2.png
516
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Moro discloses “various alternations and modifications may be applied” (see paragraph 0125). However, Moro shows the first wall (element 82A) surrounding only one of the burls in the central region (see figure 7B), thus appears to be silent wherein the first wall surrounds at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the central region and one or more pressure sensors configured to measure a pressure in the gap and configured for use in control of extraction of gas by at least one of the gas flow.
Inoue teaches it was known in the art to have a support table (Figures 1-6) comprising a base surface (element 2S) having at least 10 burls (element 37/ see annotated figure 2 below Detail A) supporting a substrate (element P), a central region (element V1), an intermediate region (element V2) surrounding the central region (see annotated figure below), an outer region (element V3) surrounding the central and intermediate regions (see annotated figure 4 below), a first wall (element 35), a second wall (element 36), a third wall (element 39), and wherein the first wall surrounds at least two burls of the at least 10 burls (see annotated figure 4 below Detail B) in the central region (see annotated figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
216
728
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
427
707
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moro to incorporate the teachings of Inoue to provide wherein the first wall surrounds at least two of the burls in the central region. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing additional burls supporting the substrate would increase the securement and prevent the substrate from falling during operations.
However, Moro modified appears to be silent comprising one or more pressure sensors configured to measure a pressure in the gap and configured for use in control of extraction of gas by at least one of the gas flow.
Noburu teaches it was known in the art to have a support table (Figures 1-3 and see also paragraph 0024) comprising a base surface (surface of element 5), a plurality of gas flow openings (element 6), and one or more pressure sensors (element 11 and see also paragraph 0027) configured to measure a pressure in the gap and configured for use in control of extraction of gas by at least one of the gas flow (see paragraphs 0027-0028/0030-0031).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moro to incorporate the teachings of Noburu to provide one or more pressure sensors configured to measure a pressure in the gap and configured for use in control of extraction of gas by at least one of the gas flow. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing pressure sensors would necessarily allow the user to determined that adsorption is normal or make adjustments as disclosed by Noburu (see paragraphs 0030-0031).
Regarding claim 22, Moro modified discloses: the support table of claim 21, wherein each of the central, intermediate and outer regions include at least one gas flow opening of the plurality of gas flow openings (see annotated figure below showing at least one gas flow opening (element 83) at each central, intermediate and outer regions (Detail A/B/C)).
PNG
media_image2.png
516
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Moro modified discloses: the support table of claim 21, wherein the first, second and/or third wall is in the shape of a circle (see annotated 7B figure above showing elements 82a/b/c (first, second, and third wall) in the shape of a circle).
Regarding claim 26, Moro modified discloses: the support table of claim 21, wherein a distance between the second and third walls along a radial line (see annotated figure 7B below Detail A) and a radial distance between the first and second walls (see annotated figure 7B below Detail B) along the radial line.
PNG
media_image5.png
848
884
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Moro discloses “various alternations and modifications may be applied” (see paragraph 0125). However, Moro modified appears to be silent wherein the distance between the second and third walls along the radial line is greater than the radial distance between the first and second walls along the radial line.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support table of Moro to have wherein the distance between the second and third walls along the radial line is greater than the radial distance between the first and second walls along the radial line, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the support table of Moro would not operate differently with the claimed distance and would function appropriately. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the claimed radial distance being greater than spacing, and does not provide examples or results of the device performing differently outside the claimed radial distance (see specification paragraphs 0087-0089).
Regarding claim 27, Moro modified discloses: the support table of claim 21, wherein each of the first, second and third walls is in the form of an annulus (see claim interpretation above (see pages 2-3) and see annotated figure 7B below showing the first, second, and third walls form of a ring, thus being in the form of an annulus).
PNG
media_image2.png
516
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 28, Moro modified discloses: the support table of claim 21, further comprising a seal protrusion (element 87) surrounding the third wall and having a different height than the burls (see figure 7B showing element 87 (seal protrusion) surrounding portions of the third wall (element 82c) and in figure 7a showing element 87 (seal protrusion) having a different height than the burls (element 81)).
Regarding claim 30, Moro discloses: a support table (Figures 7A-8C and see also paragraph 0068-0072) configured to support a substrate (element W), the support table comprising:
a base surface (element 61) having at least 10 burls (element 81 and see also figure 7B showing at least 10 elements 81 (burls)) configured to support the substrate (see figure 7a and paragraph 0068);
a central region (see annotated figure 7B below Detail A) comprising a first gas flow opening (element 83) configured to extract gas from a gap (element 80) between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table (see paragraph 0068, ll. 8-14 where the prior art states that element 81 protrudes from the top surface of element 61 in order to support the wafer (element W) keeping gaps (element 80) and the gaps 80 are “evacuated by a suction apparatus” and see also paragraph 0071, ll. 1-9 for evacuation operations that include “ evacuation by a suction apparatus 86 such as a vacuum pump via the suction holes 83”);
an intermediate region (see annotated figure 7B below Detail B) surrounding the central region (see annotated figure below), the intermediate region comprising a second gas flow opening (element 83) configured to extract gas from a gap (element 80) between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table (see figure 7A and see also paragraphs 0068/0071);
an outer region (see annotated figure 7B below Detail C) surrounding the central and intermediate regions (see annotated figure below), the outer region comprising a third gas flow opening configured to extract gas from a gap (element 80) between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table (see figure 7A and see also paragraphs 0068/0071);
a first structure (element 82A) to form a seal between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table (see figures 7A-7B);
a second structure (element 82B) to form a seal between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table (see figures 7A-7B), the second structure surrounding the intermediate and central regions, the first structure, and at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the intermediate region (see figure 7A and see also paragraphs 0068/0071); and
a third structure (element 82C) to form a seal between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table (see figures 7A-7B), the third structure surrounding the outer, intermediate and central regions, the first structure, the second structure, and at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the outer region (see figures 7A-7B and annotated figure 7B below showing the third structure (element 82C) surrounding the outer, intermediate and central regions (Detail A/B/C), the first/second structure (elements 82A/82B), at least two of the burls (element 81) in the outer region).
PNG
media_image2.png
516
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Moro discloses “various alternations and modifications may be applied” (see paragraph 0125). However, Moro shows the first wall (element 82A) surrounding only one of the burls in the central region (see figure 7B), thus appears to be silent wherein the first structure surrounding at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the central region and one or more pressure sensors configured to measure a pressure in the gap and configured for use in control of extraction of gas by at least one of the gas flow.
Inoue teaches it was known in the art to have a support table (Figures 1-6) comprising a base surface (element 2S) having at least 10 burls (element 37/ see annotated figure 2 below Detail A) supporting a substrate (element P), a central region (element V1), an intermediate region (element V2) surrounding the central region (see annotated figure below), an outer region (element V3) surrounding the central and intermediate regions (see annotated figure 4 below), a first structure (element 35), a second wall (element 36), a third wall (element 39), and wherein the first structure surrounding at least two burls of the at least 10 burls (see annotated figure 4 below Detail B) in the central region (see annotated figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
216
728
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
427
707
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moro to incorporate the teachings of Inoue to provide wherein the first structure surrounding at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the central region. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing additional burls supporting the substrate would increase the securement and prevent the substrate from falling during operations.
However, Moro modified appears to be silent comprising one or more pressure sensors configured to measure a pressure in the gap and configured for use in control of extraction of gas by at least one of the gas flow.
Noburu teaches it was known in the art to have a support table (Figures 1-3 and see also paragraph 0024) comprising a base surface (surface of element 5), a plurality of gas flow openings (element 6), and one or more pressure sensors (element 11 and see also paragraph 0027) configured to measure a pressure in the gap and configured for use in control of extraction of gas by at least one of the gas flow (see paragraphs 0027-0028/0030-0031).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moro to incorporate the teachings of Noburu to provide one or more pressure sensors configured to measure a pressure in the gap and configured for use in control of extraction of gas by at least one of the gas flow. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing pressure sensors would necessarily allow the user to determined that adsorption is normal or make adjustments as disclosed by Noburu (see paragraphs 0030-0031).
Regarding claim 33, Moro modified discloses: the support table of claim 30, wherein the first, second and/or third structure is in the shape of a circle (see annotated 7B figure below showing elements 82a/b/c (first, second, and third structure) in the shape of a circle).
PNG
media_image5.png
848
884
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 34, Moro modified discloses: the support table of claim 30, wherein a distance between the second and third structures along a radial line (see annotated figure 7B above Detail A) and a radial distance between the first and second structures (see annotated figure 7B above Detail B) along the radial line.
Furthermore, Moro discloses “various alternations and modifications may be applied” (see paragraph 0125). However, Moro modified appears to be silent wherein the distance between the second and third structures along the radial line is greater than the radial distance between the first and second structures along the radial line.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support table of Moro to have wherein the distance between the second and third structures along the radial line is greater than the radial distance between the first and second structures along the radial line, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the support table of Moro would not operate differently with the claimed distance and would function appropriately. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the claimed radial distance being greater than spacing, and does not provide examples or results of the device performing differently outside the claimed radial distance (see specification paragraphs 0087-0089).
Regarding claim 35, Moro modified discloses: the support table of claim 30, wherein each of the first, second and third regions is in the form of an annulus (see claim interpretation above (see pages 2-3) and see annotated figure 7B below showing the first, second, and third structures form of a ring, thus being in the form of an annulus).
PNG
media_image2.png
516
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 36, Moro modified discloses: the support table of claim 30, further comprising a seal protrusion (element 87) surrounding the third structure and having a different height than the burls (see figure 7B showing element 87 (seal protrusion) surrounding portions of the third structure (element 82c) and in figure 7a showing element 87 (seal protrusion) having a different height than the burls (element 81)).
Regarding claim 38, Moro discloses: a support table (Figures 7A-8C and see also paragraph 0068-0072) configured to support a substrate (element W), the support table comprising:
a base surface (element 61) having at least 10 burls (element 81 and see also figure 7B showing at least 10 elements 81 (burls)) configured to support the substrate (see figure 7a and paragraph 0068);
a central region (see annotated figure 7B below Detail A);
an intermediate region (see annotated figure 7B below Detail B) surrounding the central region (see annotated figure below);
an outer region (see annotated figure 7B below Detail C) surrounding the central and intermediate regions (see annotated figure below);
a first structure (element 82A) to form a seal between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table (see figures 7A-7B);
a second structure (element 82B) to form a seal between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table (see figures 7A-7B), the second structure surrounding the intermediate and central regions, the first structure, and at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the intermediate region (see figures 7A-7B and annotated figure 7B below showing the second structure (element 82B) protruding away from the gas flow openings (element 83) and surrounding the intermediate and central regions (Detail A/B), the first structure (element 82A), and at least two of the burls (element 81) in the intermediate region) ; and
a third structure (element 82C) to form a seal between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table (see figures 7A-7B), the third structure surrounding the outer, intermediate and central regions, the first structure, the second structure, at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the outer region (see figures 7A-7B and annotated figure 7B below showing the third structure (element 82C) surrounding the outer, intermediate and central regions (Detail A/B/C), the first/second structure (elements 82A/82B), at least two of the burls (element 81) in the outer region) and a plurality of gas flow openings (element 83) configured to extract gas from a gap (element 80) between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table (see figure 7A and see also paragraph 0068/0071).
PNG
media_image2.png
516
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Moro discloses “various alternations and modifications may be applied” (see paragraph 0125). However, Moro shows the first wall (element 82A) surrounding only one of the burls in the central region (see figure 7B), thus appears to be silent wherein the first structure surrounding at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the central region and one or more pressure sensors configured to measure a pressure in the gap and configured for use in control of extraction of gas by at least one of the gas flow.
Inoue teaches it was known in the art to have a support table (Figures 1-6) comprising a base surface (element 2S) having at least 10 burls (element 37/ see annotated figure 2 below Detail A) supporting a substrate (element P), a central region (element V1), an intermediate region (element V2) surrounding the central region (see annotated figure below), an outer region (element V3) surrounding the central and intermediate regions (see annotated figure 4 below), a first structure (element 35), a second wall (element 36), a third wall (element 39), and wherein the first structure surrounding at least two burls of the at least 10 burls (see annotated figure 4 below Detail B) in the central region (see annotated figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
216
728
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
427
707
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moro to incorporate the teachings of Inoue to provide wherein the first structure surrounding at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the central region. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing additional burls supporting the substrate would increase the securement and prevent the substrate from falling during operations.
However, Moro modified appears to be silent comprising one or more pressure sensors configured to measure a pressure in the gap and configured for use in control of extraction of gas by at least one of the gas flow.
Noburu teaches it was known in the art to have a support table (Figures 1-3 and see also paragraph 0024) comprising a base surface (surface of element 5), a plurality of gas flow openings (element 6), and one or more pressure sensors (element 11 and see also paragraph 0027) configured to measure a pressure in the gap and configured for use in control of extraction of gas by at least one of the gas flow (see paragraphs 0027-0028/0030-0031).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moro to incorporate the teachings of Noburu to provide one or more pressure sensors configured to measure a pressure in the gap and configured for use in control of extraction of gas by at least one of the gas flow. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing pressure sensors would necessarily allow the user to determined that adsorption is normal or make adjustments as disclosed by Noburu (see paragraphs 0030-0031).
Regarding claim 39, Moro modified discloses: the support table of claim 38, wherein a distance between the second and third structures along a radial line (see annotated figure 7B below Detail A) and a radial distance between the first and second structures (see annotated figure 7B below Detail B) along the radial line.
PNG
media_image5.png
848
884
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Moro discloses “various alternations and modifications may be applied” (see paragraph 0125). However, Moro modified appears to be silent wherein the distance between the second and third structures along the radial line is greater than the radial distance between the first and second structures along the radial line.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support table of Moro to have wherein the distance between the second and third structures along the radial line is greater than the radial distance between the first and second structures along the radial line, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recita