DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 58-60 and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For claims 58-60, the claim limitation “control software” is indefinite because control software by itself is an intangible material that has no structure but is positively recited as part of the object table system. For the purposes of examining, the control software is understood to be “non-transitory media comprising a control software stored therein, the control software, when executed” as recited in claim 51.
Claim 60 recites the limitation "the control software". There is insufficient antecedent basis for control software in the claim.
Claim 63 recites the limitation "the piezoelectric layers". There is insufficient antecedent basis for a plurality of piezoelectric layers in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 37-39 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McKinley et al. [US 5,724,121].
For claims 37, McKinley teaches a method (see Figs. 10-12c and col. 17 line 17- col. 20 line 6) comprising:
deforming a main body of a table to generate an out-of-plane deformation of a holding surface of the table (deformation of the plate 526 to match the shape of substrate 28, see Fig. 12b), in accordance with shape information (information from flatness sensor, see col. 17 lines 34-42 and col. 19 line 55 - col. 20 line 6) of a semiconductor substrate (a semiconductor wafer, see col. 2 line 49); and
exerting a holding force on the substrate to hold the substrate on the table (see col. 19 lines 1-25),
wherein a neutral plane of actuation of the main body is arranged to substantially coincide with a neutral plane of the substrate when the main body is subjected to the out-of-plane deformation (the neutral planes of the body plate 526 and the substrate 28 have the same shape, see Fig. 12B, where a neutral plane is roughly halfway between two opposite side surfaces of an object).
For claim 38, McKinley teaches deforming the main body to its initial shape when the substrate is held on the table (see Fig. 12c).
For claim 39, McKinley teaches deforming the main body to its initial shape comprises reversing the out-of-plane deformation (see Figs. 12b-12c).
For claim 43, McKinley teaches out-of-plane deformation causes a bending of the holding surface (see Fig. 12b).
Claims 57, 61, 63, and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Govil et al [US 6,556,281].
For claim 57, Govil teaches an object table system (see Figs. 1 and 2) configured to hold an object on a holding surface (wafer chuck with holding surface 105, 212), the object table system comprising:
an object table (100 and 200) comprising:
a main body comprising the holding surface (body of the chuck); and
a plurality of burls (106) extending from the main body, end surfaces of the burls defining the holding surface;
an actuator assembly comprising a plurality of electrodes (116) and a common piezoelectric layer (110 and 210) spanning the electrodes, the electrodes and piezoelectric layer configured to generate a deformation of the object table (by providing electrical signals to the piezoelectric layer through the electrode layer 116, the piezoelectric layer 110 can be deformed, thus flexing the substrate support layer 111, see col. 4 lines 50-60).
For claim 61, Govil teaches the plurality of burls are arranged on a first surface of the main body (top surface of 212) and wherein the actuator assembly is mounted to a second surface of the main body that is opposite to the first surface (ground attached to bottom of surface 212).
For claim 63, Govil teaches a further plurality of electrodes (ground 211 in physical separate section 155 and 156), the further plurality of electrodes located opposite, across the piezoelectric layers, of the plurality of electrodes (see Fig. 2).
For claim 64, Govil teaches an exposure apparatus comprising the object table system according to claim 57 (exposure apparatus used during lithographic processing, see col. 1 lines 30-45 and col. 2 lines 55-60).
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 40 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKinley in view of Taniguchi et al. [US 2004/0080734].
For claim 40, McKinley teaches generating the out-of-plane deformation (see Fig. 12b) and Taniguchi teaches generating the out-of-plane shape prior to the exertion of the holding force (S305 occurs after S303, see Fig. 18).
McKinley shows the substrate table is deformed to match the shape of the substrate prior to flattening the substrate in Fig. 12b, but fails to explicitly teach deforming a main body prior to contact of the substrate with the holding surface and generating the out-of-plane shape prior to the exertion of the holding force.
Taniguchi teaches a method (see Fig. 17 and 18 and [0184]-[0191]) comprising: changing the shape of table holding plane in accordance with shape information (S303 according to sensor scanning output at S301 and S302, see Fig. 18) prior to contact of the substrate with the holding surface (S304); and exerting a holding force on the substrate to hold the substrate on the table after generating the holding plane (S305).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the chuck adjust steps as taught by Taniguchi in the deformation method as taught by McKinley in order to ensure that the substrate is secure to the entire surface of the substrate support prior to flattening the substrate so that the pulling force is applied to a gripped surface of the substrate and to reduce the likelihood of slippage during flattening.
For claim 41, McKinley fails to teach generating a further out-of-plane deformation of the holding surface using a further actuator assembly.
Taniguchi teaches generating a further out-of-plane deformation of the holding surface using a further actuator assembly (plurality of groups of actuators 12 for each body 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the further actuator assembly as taught by Taniguchi in the object table as taught by McKinley in order to accommodate large area glass substrates that have an uneven thickness in a single direction.
Claims 51 and 54-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKinley in view of Poiesz [WO 2016/206839].
For claims 51 and 54, McKinley teaches an object table system (see Fig. 11) configured to hold an object (28) on a holding surface (531), the object table system comprising:
an object table (502) comprising:
a main body (526) comprising the holding surface;
an actuator assembly configured to exert a force on the holding surface in an undeformed state to generate out-of-plane deformation;
non-transitory media comprising a control software (processor 512 for reading data and analyzing data, see col. 19 line 55 - col. 20 line 6) stored therein, the control software, when executed, configured to:
cause the actuator assembly to deform the main body to generate an out-of-plane deformation of the holding surface (deformation of the plate 526 to match the shape of substrate 28, see Fig. 12b), in accordance with shape information (information from flatness sensor, see col. 17 lines 34-42 and col. 19 line 55 - col. 20 line 6) of the object (a semiconductor wafer, see col. 2 line 49); and exerting a holding force on the object to hold the object on the table (see col. 19 lines 1-25).
McKinley fails to teach a plurality of burls extending from the main body, end surfaces of the burls defining the holding surface; an actuator assembly configured to exert a force in a direction substantially parallel to a plane defined by the holding surface in an undeformed state to generate out-of-plane deformation: and the plurality of burls are arranged on a first surface of the main body and further comprising the actuator assembly mounted to a second surface of the main body that is opposite to the first surface.
Poiesz teaches a plurality of burls extending from the main body (3, see Figs. 2-6), end surfaces of the burls defining the holding surface (see page 8 lines 2-6); an actuator assembly (6) configured to exert a force in a direction substantially parallel to a plane defined by the holding surface in an undeformed state to generate out-of-plane deformation (piezo actuators extend in a plane substantially parallel to the support surface, so that the piezo actuators 6 are capable of bending the support body edge part 7, when desired, see page 9 lines 14-25); and the plurality of burls are arranged on a first surface of the main body and further comprising the actuator assembly mounted to a second surface of the main body that is opposite to the first surface (see the arrangement in Figs. 2-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the burl plate and actuators as taught by Poiesz in the support as taught by McKinley in order to allow for fine particles between the substrate and table without further deforming the substrate and for compensating for higher order unflatness typically occurs in the edge area of the upper surface of the substrate.
For claim 55, McKinley teaches a sensor assembly configured to sense a shape of the object that is to be held (flatness sensor, see Figs. 10 and 13).
For claim 56, McKinley teaches an exposure apparatus comprising the object table system according to claim 51 (see Fig. 1).
Claims 52 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKinley in view of Poiesz as applied to claim 51, and in further view of Taniguchi.
For claim 52, McKinley shows the substrate table is deformed to match the shape of the substrate prior to flattening the substrate in Fig. 12b, but fails to explicitly teach deforming a main body prior to contact of the substrate with the holding surface, and generating the out-of-plane shape prior to the exertion of the holding force.
Taniguchi teaches (see Fig. 17 and 18 and [0184]-[0191]) changing the shape of table holding plane in accordance with shape information (S303 according to sensor scanning output at S301 and S302, see Fig. 18) prior to contact of the substrate with the holding surface (S304); and exerting a holding force on the substrate to hold the substrate on the table after generating the holding plane (S305).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the substrate deforming steps as taught by Taniguchi in the control method as taught by McKinley in order to ensure that the substrate is secure to the entire surface of the substrate support prior to flattening the substrate so that the pulling force is applied to a gripped surface of the substrate and to reduce the likelihood of slippage during flattening.
For claim 53, McKinley fails to teach the control software is further configured to cause a further actuator assembly to generate a further out-of-plane deformation of the holding surface.
Taniguchi teaches the control software is further configured to cause a further actuator assembly to generate a further out-of-plane deformation of the holding surface (plurality of groups of actuators 12 for each body 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the further actuator assembly as taught by Taniguchi in the object table as taught by McKinley in order to accommodate large area glass substrates that have an uneven thickness in a single direction.
Claims 58 and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govil in view of McKinley.
For claims 58 and 62, Govil fails to teach control software configured to cause the actuator assembly to deform the main body to generate an out-of-plane deformation of the holding surface, in accordance with shape information of the object, further comprising a sensor assembly configured to sense a shape of the object that is to be held.
McKinley teaches control software (processor 512 for reading data and analyzing data, see col. 19 line 55 - col. 20 line 6) to cause the actuator assembly to deform the main body to generate an out-of-plane deformation of the holding surface (deformation of the plate 526 to match the shape of substrate 28, see Fig. 12b), in accordance with shape information (information from flatness sensor, see col. 17 lines 34-42 and col. 19 line 55 - col. 20 line 6) of the object (a semiconductor wafer, see col. 2 line 49); and a sensor assembly configured to sense a shape of the object that is to be held (flatness sensor, see Figs. 10 and 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the control software as taught by McKinley in the deformable chuck as taught by Govil in order to flatten the substrate during exposure to main the surface of the substrate in focus.
Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govil in view of Taniguchi.
For claim 60, Govil teaches a further actuator assembly (actuator group in region 155 different from actuator in region 156, see Figs. 1 and 2) but fails to teach the control software is further configured to cause the further actuator assembly to generate a further out-of-plane deformation of the holding surface.
Taniguchi teaches a further actuator assembly and wherein the control software is further configured to cause the further actuator assembly to generate a further out-of-plane deformation of the holding surface (plurality of groups of actuators 12 for each body 11 controlled by computer 3, see Fig. 1 and 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the further actuator assembly with control software as taught by Taniguchi in the deformable chuck as taught by Govil in order to accommodate large area glass substrates that have an uneven thickness in a single direction.
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govil in view of McKinley as applied to claim 58, and in further view of Taniguchi.
For claim 59, Govil fails to explicitly teach the control software is further configured to cause the actuator assembly to generate the out-of-plane prior to exertion of a holding force on the substrate to hold the substrate on the table.
Taniguchi teaches
control software is further configured to cause the actuator assembly (see Fig. 17 and 18 and [0184]-[0191]) to generate the out-of-plane prior to exertion of a holding force (S303) on the substrate to hold the substrate on the table (S304 and S305).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the substrate deforming steps as taught by Taniguchi in the deformable chuck as taught by Govil in order to ensure that the substrate is secure to the entire surface of the substrate support prior to flattening the substrate so that the pulling force is applied to a gripped surface of the substrate and to reduce the likelihood of slippage during flattening.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 6 and 7 of the Remarks, regarding claim 37, that the identified location of the neutral plane does not make grammatical sense and that McKinley fails to provide any indication that the neutral planes substantially coincide.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The language has been clarified above. The claim term “coincide” is understood to be similar because it is impossible for the neutral planes of two distinct physical objects to occupy the same space. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the inherent nature of the claimed feature with respect to the description and figures of McKinley. In Fig. 12B, the shape of the contacting surface of plate 156 is substantially similar to and coincides with the shape of the contacting surface of the substrate 28 in order to hold the bowed substrate by vacuum. The neutral plane is halfway between the top and bottom surface of the object (see Fig. 3A of Binnard [US 2004/0025322] for inherency). Accordingly, the neutral planes of the substrate 28 and the plate 156 also substantially coincide with each other.
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 Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Steven H Whitesell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights