Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (USPGPub 2017/0213698) in view of Fujimori et al. (USPGPub 2002/0102754).
Regarding claim 6, Kobayashi teaches an alternative embodiment to claim to Fig.1 [0065] wherein the device of his invention comprises an electrostatic chuck as a holding member for the substrate and a plurality of holder present under the chuck (see item 42). It is stated that if a chuck is present the mask is lifted with a lifting mechanism not shown. However, Kobayashi at least teaches a means of holding the mask that would be suitable (i.e., 41 and 42) wherein it would only be required to add the ability to raise and lower (or be provided with a lifting mechanism from above or below in order to perform the task of Kobayashi. One reading Kobayashi would reasonably envisage lifting 41 and 42 as described from above or below either one wherein both possibilities would provide a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been considered “obvious to try” for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use items 41 and 42 of Kobayashi with a lifting mechanism as described by Kobayashi from above or below, given a limited number of possibilities and wherein either would reasonably be expected to succeed. If an electrostatic chuck were present as described then it would reasonably be present above the substrate, which is also the location of item 41. As such it would be reasonable to attach 41 to the chuck above the substrate or modify 41 to extend from the described chuck. Either would be considered a mere rearrangement of the alternative embodiment of Kobayashi wherein the Court has long held that the particular arrangement of parts so long as the operation of the device was not modified to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). As such and as shown in Fig. 1 of Kobayashi, first, second and third connection parts would be present in the invention of Kobayashi as described. Kobayashi fails to teach wherein the lower holding portion (third connection part) of Kobayashi is rotatable. However, Fujimori teaches that it is known to provide substrate holders similar to those claimed in such a manner that they are freely rotatable, presumably allowing for the release of the substrate if desired [0076]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the holders of Kobayashi with the rotation ability of Fujimori in order to allow for the release of the substrates at a desired time provided by this mechanism in Fujimori.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (USPGPub 2017/0213698) in view of Fujimori et al. (USPGPub 2002/0102754) as applied to claim 6-7 above and further in view of Steger (US5522131).
Regarding claim 8, the teachings of Kobayashi in view of Fujimori are as shown above. Kobayashi in view of Fujimori fails to teach wherein the electrostatic chuck comprises grooves that would overlap the third connection part. However, Steger teaches an electrostatic chuck having a groove configuration that would overlap the holders of Kobayashi in view of Fujimori (Fig. 4) wherein the groove pattern is provided to aid in heat distribution (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the grooved pattern of Steger in the electrostatic chuck of Kobayashi in view of Fujimori in order to control the heat in the chuck of Kobayashi in view of Fujimori in the same manner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 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.
Claims 1-5 were allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: it is not known in the prior art to provide a substrate loading device comprising an electrostatic chuck that chucks a substrate; a mask frame disposed under the electrostatic chuck, and including an edge having a flat top surface; and a plurality of holders disposed between the electrostatic chuck and the mask frame, each of the plurality of holders including: a first connection part connected to a side of the electrostatic chuck; a second connection part connected to the first connection part and extending in a direction intersecting an extension direction of the first connection part; and a third connection part connected to the second connection part, extending in a direction intersecting an extension direction of the second connection part, and rotationally moving between a first position overlapping the substrate in a thickness direction of the substrate and a second position spaced apart from the substrate as in claim 1 or to
provide a substrate loading device comprising: an electrostatic chuck that chucks a substrate, and having an area that is greater than an area of the substrate in a plan view; and a plurality of holders disposed under the electrostatic chuck, each of the plurality of holders including: a first connection part connected to a side of the electrostatic chuck; a second connection part connected to the first connection part and extending in a direction intersecting an extension direction of the first connection part; and a third connection part connected to the second connection part, extending in a direction intersecting an extension direction of the second connection part, and linearly moving between a first position overlapping the substrate in a thickness direction of the substrate and a second position spaced apart from the substrate wherein the third connection part linearly moves in the direction intersecting the extension direction of the second connection part as in claim 8 or to
provide a substrate loading device comprising: an electrostatic chuck that chucks a substrate, and having an area that is greater than an area of the substrate in a plan view; and a plurality of holders disposed under the electrostatic chuck, each of the plurality of holders including: a first connection part connected to a side of the electrostatic chuck; a second connection part connected to the first connection part and extending in a direction intersecting an extension direction of the first connection part; and a third connection part connected to the second connection part, extending in a direction intersecting an extension direction of the second connection part, and linearly moving between a first position overlapping the substrate in a thickness direction of the substrate and a second position spaced apart from the substrate further comprising: a mask frame disposed under the plurality of holders and including an edge having a flat top surface as in claim 9.
The most pertinent prior art (cited above as Kobayashi et al.) teaches a substrate loading device being similarly constructed to the invention of the current claims but fails to teach holding parts that move in a linear fashion or wherein the holder portions of the substrate holder are present between the substrate and an underlying mask.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 5:00AM-11:00AM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ANDREW J BOWMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights