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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed 05/04/2026 have been entered. Accordingly, claims 21-40 are currently pending and have been examined. The examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 21, 30, and 38. Claims 1-20 are cancelled by applicant. 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. For the reason(s) set forth below, applicant’s arguments have not been found persuasive. The action is Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2025 has been received and considered by the examiner.
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 body having a base surface having at least 10 burls configured to support the substrate;
a base surface having at least 10 burls;
a plurality of gas flow openings in the body, the 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 of the body, the first wall protruding away from the gas flow openings and surrounding a central region, and at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the central region;
a second wall of the body, the second wall protruding away from the gas flow openings and surrounding (1) an intermediate region that surrounds the central region, (2) the first wall, and (3) at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the intermediate region;
a third wall of the body, the third wall protruding away from the gas flow openings and surrounding (4) an outer region that surrounds the intermediate and central regions, at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the outer region, (5) the first and second walls, and (6) 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 in or on the body, the 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 (elements 9/10/11 and see also paragraph 0027) in or on the body (see figure 1 showing a portion (element 9) of the one or more sensors (elements 9/10/11) in a hole (element 8) portion of the body (element 5) and having outer surfaces on a surface of the body), the 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 (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 body having a base surface having at least 10 burls configured to support the substrate;
a base surface having at least 10 burls;
a first gas flow opening of the body in a central region, the 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;
a second gas flow opening of the body in a intermediate region that surrounds the central region, the 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;
a third gas flow opening of the body in an outer region that surrounds the intermediate and central regions, the 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 of the body 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 of the body 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 of the body 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 in or on the body, the 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 (elements 9/10/11 and see also paragraph 0027) in or on the body (see figure 1 showing a portion (element 9) of the one or more sensors (elements 9/10/11) in a hole (element 8) portion of the body (element 5) and having outer surfaces on a surface of the body), the 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 (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 body having a base surface having at least 10 burls configured to support the substrate;
a base surface having at least 10 burls;
a first structure of the body to form a seal between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table, the first structure surrounding a central region and at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the central region; a second structure of the body to form a seal between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table, the second structure surrounding (1) an intermediate that surrounds the central regions, (2) the first structure, and (3) at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the intermediate region; and a third structure of the body to form a seal between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table, the third structure surrounding (4) an outer region that surrounds the intermediate and central regions, (5) the first structure, (6) the second structure, (7) at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the outer region and (8) 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 in or on the body, the 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 (elements 9/10/11 and see also paragraph 0027) in or on the body (see figure 1 showing a portion (element 9) of the one or more sensors (elements 9/10/11) in a hole (element 8) portion of the body (element 5) and having outer surfaces on a surface of the body), the 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 (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 body (element 61) having a base surface (top surface of 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 plurality of gas flow openings (element 83) in the body (see figure 7a), the gas flow openings 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) of the body, the first wall protruding away from the gas flow openings and surrounding a central region (see figures 7A and figure 7B annotated below showing the first wall (element 82A) protruding away from the gas flow openings (element 83) and surrounding a central region (Detail A));
a second wall (element 82B) of the body, the second wall protruding away from the gas flow openings and surrounding (1) an intermediate region that surrounds the central region, (2) the first wall, and (3) at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the intermediate region (see figure 7A and annotated figure 7B below showing the second wall (element 82B) protruding away from the gas flow openings (element 83) and surrounding an intermediate region (Detail B) that surrounds the central regions (Detail A), the first wall (element 82A), and at least two of the burls (element 81) in the intermediate region);
a third wall (element 82C) of the body, the third wall protruding away from the gas flow openings and surrounding (4) an outer region that surrounds the intermediate and central regions, at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the outer region, (5) the first and second walls, and (6) the plurality of gas flow openings (see figure 7A and annotated figure 7B below showing the third wall (element 82C) protruding away from the gas flow openings (element 83) and surrounding an outer region (Detail C) that surrounds the intermediate and central regions (Detail 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_image1.png
516
514
media_image1.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 in or on the body, the 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 openings.
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_image2.png
216
728
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
427
707
media_image3.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 in or on the body, the 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 openings.
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 (elements 9/10/11 and see also paragraph 0027) in or on the body (see figure 1 showing a portion (element 9) of the one or more sensors (elements 9/10/11) in a hole (element 8) portion of the body (element 5) and having outer surfaces on a surface of the body), the 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 (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).
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_image1.png
516
514
media_image1.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_image4.png
848
884
media_image4.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_image1.png
516
514
media_image1.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 body having (element 61) a base surface (top surface of 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 first gas flow opening (element 83 within the boundaries of element 82A) of the body in a central region (see figure 7B annotated below Detail A), the first gas flow opening configured to extract gas from a gap 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”);
a second gas flow opening (element 83 within the boundaries of element 82B) of the body in an intermediate region (see figure 7B annotated below Detail B) that surrounds the central region(see figure 7B annotated below), the second gas flow opening configured to extract gas from a gap between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table (see figure 7A and see also paragraphs 0068/0071);
a third gas flow opening (element 83 within the boundaries of element 82C) of the body in an outer region (see figure 7B annotated below Detail C) that surrounds the intermediate and central regions (see figure 7B annotated below), the third gas flow opening configured to extract gas from a gap 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) of the body 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) of the body 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);
a third structure (element 82C) of the body 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_image1.png
516
514
media_image1.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 in or on the body, the one or more pressure sensors configured to measure a pressure in the gap and configured for use in control of extraction of gas by the first, second and/or third gas flow opening.
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_image2.png
216
728
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
427
707
media_image3.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 in or on the body, the one or more pressure sensors configured to measure a pressure in the gap and configured for use in control of extraction of gas by the first, second and/or third gas flow opening.
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 (elements 9/10/11 and see also paragraph 0027) in or on the body (see figure 1 showing a portion (element 9) of the one or more sensors (elements 9/10/11) in a hole (element 8) portion of the body (element 5) and having outer surfaces on a surface of the body), the 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 (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).
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_image4.png
848
884
media_image4.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_image1.png
516
514
media_image1.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 body (element 61) having a base surface (top surface of 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 first structure (element 82A) of the body to form a seal between the base surface and the substrate when supported on the support table (see figures 7A-7B)¸ the first structure surrounding a central region (see figure 7B annotated below Detail A);
a second structure (element 82B) of the body 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 (1) an intermediate region (see figure 7B annotated below Detail B) that surrounds the central region, (2) the first structure, and at least two burls of the at least 10 burls in the intermediate region (see figure 7A, figure 7B annotated below, and see also paragraphs 0068/0071);
a third structure (element 82C) of the body 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 an outer region (see figure 7B annotated below Detail C) that surrounds the 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_image1.png
516
514
media_image1.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 in or on the body, the one or more pressure sensors configured to measure a pressure in the gap and configured for use in control of extraction of gas by the first, second and/or third gas flow opening.
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_image2.png
216
728
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
427
707
media_image3.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 in or on the body, the one or more pressure sensors configured to measure a pressure in the gap and configured for use in control of extraction of gas by the first, second and/or third gas flow opening.
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 (elements 9/10/11 and see also paragraph 0027) in or on the body (see figure 1 showing a portion (element 9) of the one or more sensors (elements 9/10/11) in a hole (element 8) portion of the body (element 5) and having outer surfaces on a surface of the body), the 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 (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).
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_image4.png
848
884
media_image4.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 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).
Claims 23-24 and 31-32 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) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Ichinose (WO 2014188572).
Regarding claim 23, Moro modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 21, but appears to be silent wherein the support table is configured such that gas extraction in the central region is independently controllable from gas extraction in the intermediate and outer regions.
Ichinose teaches it was known in the art to have a support table (Figures 1-13) comprising a base surface (element 54), a plurality of gas openings (elements 55A-D), a central region (see annotated figure 4B below Detail A), an intermediate region (see annotated figure 4B below Detail B) surrounding the central region (see annotated figure below), an outer region (see annotated figure 4B below Detail C) surrounding the central and intermediate regions (see annotated figure 4B below), and wherein the support table is configured such that gas extraction in the central region is independently controllable from gas extraction in the intermediate and outer regions (see annotated figure 4B below showing at the central region (Detail A) a gas opening (element 55A) for gas extraction and see also page 9-10, ll. 399-420 where the prior art discloses elements 55A-D ( gas openings) having mutually independent exhaust pipes (elements 61B1-B4), exhaust paths (elements a11, a21, a31, and a41), “independently control” via and a control system (element 51). Thus, the support table is capable such that gas extraction in the central region is independently controllable from gas extraction in the intermediate and outer regions.)
PNG
media_image5.png
463
725
media_image5.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 Ichinose to provide wherein the support table is configured such that gas extraction in the central region is independently controllable from gas extraction in the intermediate and outer regions. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing independently controllable gas extraction at respective regions allows the user to support a variety of different sized substrates while only utilizing the regions needed to support the sized substrate, thus allowing the user to selectively apply suction only to portions being utilized and control the size of the vacuum zone.
Regarding claim 24, Moro modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 21, but appears to be silent wherein the support table is configured such that gas extraction in the outer region is independently controllable from gas extraction in the intermediate and central regions.
Ichinose teaches it was known in the art to have a support table (Figures 1-13) comprising a base surface (element 54), a plurality of gas openings (elements 55A-D), a central region (see annotated figure 4B below Detail A), an intermediate region (see annotated figure 4B below Detail B) surrounding the central region (see annotated figure 4B below), an outer region (see annotated figure 4B below Detail C) surrounding the central and intermediate regions (see annotated figure 4B below), and wherein the support table is configured such that gas extraction in the outer region is independently controllable from gas extraction in the intermediate and central regions (see annotated figure 4B below showing at the central region (Detail A) a gas opening (element 55A) for gas extraction and see also page 9-10, ll. 399-420 where the prior art discloses elements 55A-D ( gas openings) having mutually independent exhaust pipes (elements 61B1-B4), exhaust paths (elements a11, a21, a31, and a41), “independently control” via and a control system (element 51). Thus, the support table is capable such that gas extraction in in the outer region is independently controllable from gas extraction in the intermediate and central regions.).
PNG
media_image5.png
463
725
media_image5.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 Ichinose to provide wherein the support table is configured such that gas extraction in the outer region is independently controllable from gas extraction in the intermediate and central regions. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing independently controllable gas extraction at respective regions allows the user to support a variety of different sized substrates while only utilizing the regions needed to support the sized substrate, thus allowing the user to selectively apply suction only to portions being utilized and control the size of the vacuum zone.
Regarding claim 31, Moro modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 30, but appears to be silent wherein the support table is configured such that gas extraction in the central region is independently controllable from gas extraction in the intermediate and outer regions.
Ichinose teaches it was known in the art to have a support table (Figures 1-13) comprising a base surface (element 54), a plurality of gas openings (elements 55A-D), a central region (see annotated figure 4B below Detail A), an intermediate region (see annotated figure 4B below Detail B) surrounding the central region (see annotated figure below), an outer region (see annotated figure 4B below Detail C) surrounding the central and intermediate regions (see annotated figure 4B below), and wherein the support table is configured such that gas extraction in the central region is independently controllable from gas extraction in the intermediate and outer regions (see annotated figure 4B below showing at the central region (Detail A) a gas opening (element 55A) for gas extraction and see also page 9-10, ll. 399-420 where the prior art discloses elements 55A-D ( gas openings) having mutually independent exhaust pipes (elements 61B1-B4), exhaust paths (elements a11, a21, a31, and a41), “independently control” via and a control system (element 51). Thus, the support table is capable such that gas extraction in the central region is independently controllable from gas extraction in the intermediate and outer regions.)
PNG
media_image5.png
463
725
media_image5.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 Ichinose to provide wherein the support table is configured such that gas extraction in the central region is independently controllable from gas extraction in the intermediate and outer regions. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing independently controllable gas extraction at respective regions allows the user to support a variety of different sized substrates while only utilizing the regions needed to support the sized substrate, thus allowing the user to selectively apply suction only to portions being utilized and control the size of the vacuum zone.
Regarding claim 32, Moro modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 30, but appears to be silent wherein the support table is configured such that gas extraction in the outer region is independently controllable from gas extraction in the intermediate and central regions.
Ichinose teaches it was known in the art to have a support table (Figures 1-13) comprising a base surface (element 54), a plurality of gas openings (elements 55A-D), a central region (see annotated figure 4B below Detail A), an intermediate region (see annotated figure 4B below Detail B) surrounding the central region (see annotated figure 4B below), an outer region (see annotated figure 4B below Detail C) surrounding the central and intermediate regions (see annotated figure 4B below), and wherein the support table is configured such that gas extraction in the outer region is independently controllable from gas extraction in the intermediate and central regions (see annotated figure 4B below showing at the central region (Detail A) a gas opening (element 55A) for gas extraction and see also page 9-10, ll. 399-420 where the prior art discloses elements 55A-D ( gas openings) having mutually independent exhaust pipes (elements 61B1-B4), exhaust paths (elements a11, a21, a31, and a41), “independently control” via and a control system (element 51). Thus, the support table is capable such that gas extraction in in the outer region is independently controllable from gas extraction in the intermediate and central regions.).
PNG
media_image5.png
463
725
media_image5.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 Ichinose to provide wherein the support table is configured such that gas extraction in the outer region is independently controllable from gas extraction in the intermediate and central regions. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing independently controllable gas extraction at respective regions allows the user to support a variety of different sized substrates while only utilizing the regions needed to support the sized substrate, thus allowing the user to selectively apply suction only to portions being utilized and control the size of the vacuum zone.
Claim 29, 37, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US Pub. No. 2013/0050665) in view of Moro (US Pub. No. 2008/0171131), Inoue (JP 2013187465), and Noburu (CN 101145536).
Regarding claim 29, Thomas discloses a lithographic apparatus (Figure 1 and see also paragraph 0035 where the prior art discloses figure 1 depicts “a lithographic apparatus”), comprising: a pattern transfer system (element PS) configured to transfer a pattern onto a substrate (see paragraph 0042 and also claim 17).
Furthermore, Thomas discloses utilizing a support table (element WT) in order to support a substrate (element W) during operations (see Figure 1). However, Thomas appears to be silent in regards to the support table of claim 21.
Moro modified teaches it was known in the art to have a support table (Figures 7A-8C) configured to support a substrate (element W) comprising the support table of claim 21 (see rejection above on pages 13-17).
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 Thomas to incorporate the teachings of Moro modified to provide the support table of claim 21. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing a support table with the added features of having a plurality of burls that structurally support the substrate and having gas flow openings that provide suction support at various locations, thus increasing securement and prevents the substrate from falling during operations.
Regarding claim 37, Thomas discloses a lithographic apparatus (Figure 1 and see also paragraph 0035 where the prior art discloses figure 1 depicts “a lithographic apparatus”), comprising: a pattern transfer system (element PS) configured to transfer a pattern onto a substrate (see paragraph 0042 and also claim 17).
Furthermore, Thomas discloses utilizing a support table (element WT) in order to support a substrate (element W) during operations (see Figure 1). However, Thomas appears to be silent in regards to the support table of claim 30.
Moro modified teaches it was known in the art to have a support table (Figures 7A-8C) configured to support a substrate (element W) comprising the support table of claim 30 (see rejection above on pages 24-29).
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 Thomas to incorporate the teachings of Moro modified to provide the support table of claim 30. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing a support table with the added features of having a plurality of burls that structurally support the substrate and having gas flow openings that provide suction support at various locations, thus increasing securement and prevents the substrate from falling during operations.
Regarding claim 40, Thomas discloses a lithographic apparatus (Figure 1 and see also paragraph 0035 where the prior art discloses figure 1 depicts “a lithographic apparatus”), comprising: a pattern transfer system (element PS) configured to transfer a pattern onto a substrate (see paragraph 0042 and also claim 17).
Furthermore, Thomas discloses utilizing a support table (element WT) in order to support a substrate (element W) during operations (see Figure 1). However, Thomas appears to be silent in regards to the support table of claim 38.
Moro modified teaches it was known in the art to have a support table (Figures 7A-8C) configured to support a substrate (element W) comprising the support table of claim 38 (see rejection above on pages 24-29).
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 Thomas to incorporate the teachings of Moro modified to provide the support table of claim 38. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing a support table with the added features of having a plurality of burls that structurally support the substrate and having gas flow openings that provide suction support at various locations, thus increasing securement and prevents the substrate from falling during operations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection being used.
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 ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM EST.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights