DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-18 and 20, in the reply filed on November 06, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 06, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al (U.S. Patent # 11,145,535).
In the method of claims 1, 17 and 20, Choi teaches a method for manufacturing an article comprising a planarization process for a semiconductor (Abstract and Column 1 Lines 9-11). The method of Choi comprised dispensing a formable material 124 onto a substrate 102 followed by contacting the formable material with a superstrate 108 to form a film/layer 144 between the substrate 102 and superstrate 108 (Column 5 Line 54 through Column 6 Line 8 and Figures 2a and 2b). The film/layer 144 was then cured followed by fully separating the superstrate 108 from the cured layer 146 (Column 6 Lines 8-20 and Figure 2c). After separation of the superstrate 108 the cured layer 146 and substrate 102 were further processed to form the article (Column 6 Lines 20-26).
Choi further teaches that when the superstrate 108 was brought into contact with the formable material 124 it was being held by a superstrate chuck 118 (Column 8 Lines 56-63). Furthermore, as shown in Figures 6a and 6c, substrate 102 was positioned relative to a substrate chuck 604 by a first protrusion of an engagement mechanism contacting the underside of the substrate 102 which were adjacent to/on the surface of the substrate chuck 604.
Furthermore, Choi teaches that the separation of the superstrate 108 from the cured film was initiated by contacting the superstrate 108 with a second protrusion of the engagement mechanism in the form of retractable pin 606 (Column 10 Lines 14-29 and Figures 6a-6c).
As for claims 2, 6 and 7, Choi teaches that the substrate 102 comprised an outer edge portion/region comprising/defining a notch 608 and that the second protrusions of the engagement mechanism lifted up through the notch to contact the superstrate and initiate separation (Column 10 Lines 14-28). Furthermore, as shown in Figure 6a, the first protrusion on the surface of substrate chuck 604 contact the rear surface of the substrate 102 in the outer edge portion/region.
As for claims 3 and 4, Choi teaches that the substrate while loaded onto the substrate chuck was rotated and translated by a positioning stage (Column 3 Lines 55-62).
As for claim 11, as shown in Figure 6a of Choi the first protrusions extending from the top surface of chuck 604 overlap with the second protrusion/pin 606 in a direction perpendicular to a radial direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, 8, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Katsuta (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0133735).
The teachings of Choi as it applies to claims 1 and 2 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claims 5, 8 and 9, Choi does not teach that the engagement mechanism was lifted to an elevated position prior to positioning the substrate and the lowered to a retracted position prior to contacting the superstrate with the formable material. Furthermore, though Choi teaches that the substrate was placed on mounting pins/protrusion as show in Figure 6a, Choi does not teach that the substrate was lowered onto the mounting pins/protrusions while in contact with the first protrusions. Choi does teach that any known type of substrate chuck was used in the planarization process (Column 3 Lines 49-54).
Katsuta teaches a substrate holding apparatus used in substrate/wafer processing (Abstract and Page 1 Paragraph 0002) which reduced local distortions of the substrate when being held (Page 1 Paragraph 0018). The apparatus of Katsuta comprised a chuck 8 having mounting pins/projections 6 on a loading surface 2 for supporting the wafer/substrate 1 (Page 2 Paragraph 0033 and Figure 1). The chuck 8 further comprised an engagement mechanism comprising a first protraction in the form of light pins 9 (Page 2 Paragraph 0035). Katsuta teaches that the wafer was loaded onto the chuck 8 by first raising the light pins to above the chuck surface 8 followed by positioning the substrate 1 on the lift pins (Page 3 Paragraph 0040) followed by lowering the lift pins 9 to load the wafer onto the mounting pins/projections 6 (Page 3 Paragraphs 0041-0042) prior to processing the wafer/substrate 1 (Page 3 Paragraph 0045).
Based on the teachings of Katsuta, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the substrate holding apparatus of Katsuta as the substrate chuck of Choi because Katsuta taught a known wafer/substrate chuck in the art that reducing distortion of the substrate during holding.
As for claim 10, Choi teaches that the second protrusion/pin 606 was located within a notch of the substrate chuck 604 (Column 10 Lines 14-19 and Figure 6a) and Katsuta teaches that the second protrusion/lift pin 9 was retracted within a notch/through hole 3 of the chuck 8 (Page 2 Paragraph 0035 and Figure 1).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuhira (U.S. Patent # 10,319,623).
The teachings of Choi as it applies to claim 1 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claims 14-16, Choi does not specifically teach that the substrate was carried onto the substrate chuck using a hand wherein the hand included at least one contact mechanism aligned with an end of the substrate.
Matsuhira teaches a conveyance hand used for conveying an object used in a semiconductor device processing apparatus which included planarization steps (Abstract and Column 8 Lines 10-25). Matsuhira teaches that the hand 10 was used to carry a substrate/object W onto a chuck 205 (Column 7 Lines 20-43 and 56-68 and Figure 11). Matsuhira further teaches that the hand 10 included at least one contact mechanism in the form of a suction pad 11 (Column 2 Line 61 through Column 3 Line 3 Figure 1) comprising a compliance pad 1 comprising a spring-loaded plunger in the form of a leaf spring 3 (Column 3 Lines 17-31 and 46-62).
Based on the teachings of Matsuhira, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the conveyance hand of Matsuhira to carry the substrate of Choi to the substrate chuck because Matsuhira taught a known conveyance hand in the art for loading a substrate onto chuck during planarization.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 13 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In the case of claim 12, as was discussed previously in the rejection of claim 2, Choi taught that the substrate had an outer edge portion defining a notch. However, Choi did not fairly teach or suggest that the size and shape of the first protrusion was selected to engage within the notch.
In the case of claim 13, as was discussed previously, Choi taught first and second protrusions for contacting the substrate and the superstrate. However, Choi did not fairly teach or suggest that the first protrusion had a first portion that extended farther in a direction perpendicular to a radial direction than a corresponding portion of the second protrusion.
In the case of claim 18, Choi did not fairly teach or suggest an engagement mechanism comprising a body in which the first and second protrusions extended from that body.
Conclusion
Claims 1 through 11, 14 through 17 and 20 have been rejected and claims 12, 13 and 18 have been objected. Claim 19 was withdrawn. No claims were allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571)272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL P WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712