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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1- 11 and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (WO 2008/105226 see translation for citations) and Tsukamoto (US 6,809,802).
Regarding claim 1, Inoue teaches a support stage comprising:
a base portion (9);
a support portion (7) that is erected at a peripheral edge portion of the base portion (9 Fig. 3) and with which one surface of a wafer 6 is to be come into contact (Fig. 3);
a suction groove (7a) that is provided at the support portion and to which a suction force with respect to the one surface is to be given [0050];
an ejecting hole (13) that is provided in an inward portion of the base portion (9) and by which a gas is to be ejected toward the one surface [0051];
and an exhaust hole (35, 7b [0022], [0049]) that is provided adjacent to the ejecting hole (13) in the inward portion of the base portion (9) and by which a gas is to be discharged from a space between the base portion (9), the support portion (7), and the one surface (6) wherein
Inoue does not teach the ejecting hole is provided at a position where a distance from a center of the base portion is less than a distance from the support portion and the exhaust hole is provided at a position where a distance from the center of the base portion is less than a distance from the support portion.
Tsukamoto teaches an ejecting hole (6) is provided at a position where a distance from a center of the base portion (1) is less than a distance from the support portion (3, fig. 1a, col. 7, ln. 23-25) and the exhaust hole (5) is provided at a position where a distance from the center of the base portion is less than a distance from the support portion (3, Fig. 1a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the ejecting hole and exhaust hole of Inoue to provide the ejecting hole is provided at a position where a distance from a center of the base portion is less than a distance from the support portion and to provide the exhaust hole is provided at a position where a distance from the center of the base portion is less than a distance from the support portion, as taught by Tsukamoto, because it would reduce a distortion or degradation of a flatness of the surface of a substrate to an optimum state so that overlay precision can be improved (col. 4, ln. 20-32).
Regarding claim 2, Inoue teaches the support portion (7) is configured so that the one surface of the wafer (6) having a warpage is to be come into contact with the support portion (7, fig. 3, 4), and the ejecting hole (13) is configured to eject a gas having pressure by which the warpage of the wafer is to be corrected, and the exhaust hole (7b, 35) is configured so that a rise in atmospheric pressure of the space is to be restrained ([0047], [0033], [0098]).
Claims 3, 4 and 5 recite a material worked upon, the wafer. Materials worked upon do not receive patentable weight in apparatus claims. See MPEP 2114 and 2115. Claims 3-5 have been considered but do not provide any patentable weight to its parent claims. The apparatus of the prior art, Inoue, would be inherently capable of receiving substrate of the materials recited by claims 3-5.
Regarding claim 6, Inoue teaches the support portion (7) is configured so that a peripheral edge portion of the one surface of the wafer (6, Fig. 3) is to be come into contact with the support portion (7, 7a, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Inoue teaches the support portion (7, 7a) is erected in an annular shape surrounding the inward portion of the base portion (9, Fig. 3), and the ejecting hole (35, [0022] is provided in a region surrounded by the support portion in the inward portion of the base portion (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 8, Inoue teaches the suction groove (7a) extends in a belt shape along the support portion (7, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Inoue teaches the ejecting hole (13, fig. 3) is configured so that a gas is to be ejected (27) toward a central portion of the one surface (6, fig 3).
Regarding claim 10, Inoue teaches the ejecting hole (13) is provided in a central portion of the base portion (9, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Inoue teaches the exhaust hole (35) is provided so as to adjoin the ejecting hole (13) in the inward portion of the base portion (9, [0098] Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 16, Inoue teaches a support device comprising:
the support stage according to Claim 1;
a suction unit (20) that is connected to the suction groove (7a, fig. 3) and by which a suction force is to be given to the suction groove [0049];
and a gas supply unit (27) that is connected to the ejecting hole (13) and by which a gas is to be supplied to the ejecting hole (13, [0051-0052]).
Regarding claim 17, Inoue teaches a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device using the support device according to Claim 16, the method comprising:
a step of allowing the support portion (7) to adsorb the one surface of the wafer (6, [0061]); and
a step of ejecting a gas from the ejecting hole (13) toward the one surface in a state in which the exhaust hole is opened [0063].
Regarding claim 18, Inoue teaches the method for manufacturing the semiconductor device according to Claim 17, wherein the wafer having a warpage is prepared, and the support portion (7) is allowed to adsorb a peripheral edge portion of the one surface of the wafer [0061], fig. 4),
and a gas having pressure by which the warpage of the wafer is corrected is ejected from the ejecting hole toward the one surface (Fig. 5 [0061-0068]).
Regarding claim 19, Inoue teaches the method for manufacturing the semiconductor device according to Claim 17, further comprising:
a processing step of applying a predetermined process [0063-0067] onto the other surface of the wafer (6) in a state in which a gas is ejected from the ejecting hole (13).
Regarding claim 20, Inoue teaches the method for manufacturing the semiconductor device according to Claim 19, wherein the wafer having a foreign substance (photomask 3, [0074]) adhered to the other surface is prepared,
and the processing step includes a step of removing the foreign substance from the other surface[0075-0077].
Regarding claim 21, Inoue teaches the exhaust hole (35) is provided on a concentric circle surrounding the center of the base portion (9) together with the ejecting hole (13, fig. 10).
Regarding claim 22, Inoue teaches the exhaust hole (35) comprises a plurality of exhaust holes (35) provided on a concentric circle surrounding the center of the base portion (9, fig. 10).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kojima (JP 07-201957 see translation for citations)
Regarding claim 12, Inoue does not teach the support portion has a side that extends linearly along an orientation flat of the wafer, and has a linear contact portion that is to be come into contact with the orientation flat.
Kojima teaches a support portion (42) has a side that extends linearly along an orientation flat of the wafer (W1, fig. 1), and has a linear contact portion that is to be come into contact with the orientation flat (W1, W2). Because Kojima teaches a support portion with a linear extension is operable to contact with a wafer along an orientation flat it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used the linear contact portion of Kojima with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all claimed elements were known in the art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143. A.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the support portion of Inoue by providing the support portion has a side that extends linearly along an orientation flat of the wafer, and has a linear contact portion that is to be come into contact with the orientation flat, as taught by Kojima, because all claimed elements were known in the art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143. A.).
Regarding claim 13, Inoue does not teach the suction groove has a part that extends linearly along the linear contact portion.
Kojima teaches a suction groove (24) has a part that extends linearly along the linear contact portion [0016].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the support portion of Inoue by providing the suction groove has a part that extends linearly along the linear contact portion, because all claimed elements were known in the art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143. A.).
Regarding claim 14, Inoue does not teach the suction groove includes a first suction groove provided on an inward side of the base portion and a second suction groove provided on a peripheral side of the base portion.
Kojima is directed to a wafer support table that teaches a suction groove (42) includes a first suction groove provided on an inward side of the base portion (16, [0019]) and a second suction groove (24) provided on a peripheral side of the base portion [0016] because it would allow different sized wafers to be accommodated on the support table without having to change support tables [0001].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the suction groove of Inoue by providing the suction groove includes a first suction groove provided on an inward side of the base portion and a second suction groove provided on a peripheral side of the base portion, as taught by Kojima, because it would allow wafers having different dimensions without replacing a wafer support table [0001].
Regarding claim 15, Inoue does not teach the first suction groove extends in a belt shape, and the second suction groove extends in a belt shape along the first suction groove.
Kojima teaches the first suction groove (42) extends in a belt shape, and the second suction (24) groove extends in a belt shape along the first suction groove (Fig. 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the suction groove of Inoue by providing the first suction groove extends in a belt shape, and the second suction groove extends in a belt shape along the first suction groove, as taught by Kojima, because it would allow wafers to have different dimensions without replacing a wafer support table [0001].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 8, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection set out above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571 272 8902. 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.
JOHN J. BRAYTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/JOHN J BRAYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights