DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s amendments, filed 09 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been entered. The rejection of claims 1-10 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, filed 09 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
4. Applicant argues on pg. 13 that incorporating piezo position would destroy Hattori’s ability to achieve the required travel ranges. The argument is not persuasive. Introducing a piezo positioner capable of fine adjustment for error would not destroy Hattori’s coarse adjustment. One could simply add such a fine adjustment on top of the coarse adjustment. Such a practice is well taught in the prior art. For more details, see the rejection below.
5. Applicant’s arguments directed towards Baggen are rendered moot because the reference is no longer relied upon in the rejection below.
6. While applicant’s arguments are not fully persuasive. The previous rejections of claims 1, 11, and their dependents under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn since the claim scope has changed. Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 11 have necessitated new grounds of rejection as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 recites “the first tilt axis” and “the second tilt axis”, which lack antecedent basis since a first tilt axis and a second tilt axis are never introduced in claim 1 and 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1, 3-8, 11, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori (US-7499180 B2) in view of Nefzi (DE 102019215217), further in view of Puerto (US 7025498) further in view of Loopstra (US 7230676).
12. Regarding claim 1:
Hattori discloses a method for interference variable compensation during the positioning of a sample support (column 1 lines 40-57 teaches using interferometer for measuring the position of a wafer stage and positioning the wafer stage on the basis of position information obtained from the laser interferometer), the method comprising the following steps: measuring a distance with a first distance sensor of the sensor support to a first side of the sample support (column 5 lines 29-30 teach that the respective laser interferometers are attached to a lens barrel surface plate 7, which corresponds to the sensor support. Column 1 lines 46-48 teaches a laser interferometer (3A-1) for measuring an X-axis position emits a laser beam almost parallel to the X-axis, detecting the relative driving amount of the wafer stage) and measuring a distance with a second distance sensor of the sensor support to a second side of the sample support opposite the first side (column 7, lines 53-54, fig. 7 teaches two X laser interferometer (3A-1 and 3C-1) are arranged on the front and rear sides of the wafer stage), wherein the distances are determined substantially in parallel to a first axis (as shown in fig. 7, X laser interferometer (3C-1) emits a laser beam almost parallel to the X-axis. Column 1 lines 46-48 teaches X laser interferometer for measuring an X-axis position emits a laser beam almost parallel to the X-axis), measuring a distance with a third distance sensor of the sensor support to a third side of the sample support (column 4 lines 65-66 teaches that Y position on the wafer stage is measured by laser interferometer 3B-1 in fig. 10), wherein the distances are determined substantially in parallel to a second axis different from the first axis (fig. 7 teaches that laser interferometer emits a light almost parallel to the y-axis, which is perpendicular to the x-axis).
Hattori fails to disclose measuring a distance with a fourth distance sensor of the sensor support to a fourth side of the sample support opposite the third side.
However, Nefzi discloses measuring a distance with a fourth distance sensor of the sensor support to a fourth side of the sample support opposite the third side (pg. 2 teaches a second sensor group (20), which detects actual distances along a y axis. Pg. 2 teaches that the second sensor group comprises preferably two secondary sensor devices and that the sensing devices are mounted on opposite sides of the optical element).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hattori in view of Nefzi to include measuring a distance with a fourth distance sensor of the sensor support to a fourth side of the sample support opposite the third side. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to further filter out the target movement with the second sensor group (as taught in Nefzi pg. 4).
Hattori in view of Nefzi does not specifically note determining the position and the extent of the sample support based upon the distances measured parallel to the first axis and the distances measured parallel to the second axis.
Puerto teaches measuring thermal expansion of the chuck in at least one dimension and adjusting the position of the chuck according to the measured thermal expansion of chuck (fig. 3, col 9 lines 64-67, col 10 lines 1-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hattori in view of Nefzi to include measuring the thermal expansion in multiple dimensions and adjusting the position of the sample accordingly, as taught by Puerto. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to allow for increased bandwidth in a control system, thus improving the ability to produce smaller features within a semiconductor chip layer and more accurate registration of the chip layers (Puerto col 10 lines 32-36).
Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Puerto does not specifically disclose positioning the sample support relative to the sensor support using a piezo positioner based upon the determined position and the determined extent of the sample support.
Loopstra teaches a coarse positioning module (an X-Y table) with micrometer accuracies, onto which is cascaded a fine positioning module for correcting for the residual error to the last few nanometers. Commonly used actuators for such nano-positioning include piezoelectric actuators (col 1 lines 41-53).
Puerto teaches precisely positioning and adjusting the position of the chuck according to the measured thermal expansion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Puerto, to include the piezoelectric actuators for precise positioning, as taught by Loopstra. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to correct for the residual error of the coarse positioning module to the last few nanometers (Loopstra col 1 lines 41-53).
13. Regarding claim 3:
The modified invention above teaches the method according to claim 1. Hattori further discloses measuring a distance to the sample support using a fifth distance meter of the sensor support (column 7 lines 57-59 teaches that the Z laser interferometers (3A-3, 3B-3, and 3C-3) can measure the Z-position of the wafer sage. Here interferometer 3B-3 corresponds to the fifth distance meter), the distance being determined substantially in parallel to a third axis different from the first axis and the second axis (as shown in fig. 7, Z-axis interferometers 3B-3 emits a light reflected off a mirror in a direction almost parallel to the Z-axis), and determining the position of the sample support along the third axis (column 7 lines 57-59 teaches that the Z laser interferometers (3A-3, 3B-3, and 3C-3) can measure the Z-position of the wafer sage).
14. Regarding claim 4:
The modified invention above teaches the method according to claim 3. Hattori further discloses measuring a distance to the sample support with a sixth distance meter of the sensor support and with a seventh distance meter of the sensor support (column 7 lines 57-59 teaches that the Z laser interferometers (3A-3, 3B-3, and 3C-3) can measure the Z-position of the wafer sage. Here, interferometer 3A-3 corresponds to the sixth distance meter, and interferometer 3C-3 corresponds to the seventh distance meter), wherein the distances are determined substantially in parallel to the third axis (as shown in fig. 7 the Z laser interferometers (3A-3, 3B-3, and 3C-3) emits a light are reflected almost in parallel of the z-axis to determine the z-position).
15. Regarding claim 5:
The modified invention above teaches the method according to claim 1. Hattori further discloses herein a closed-loop control is carried out (abstract section teaches a control unit that drives the stage on the basis of an error obtained in advance by the arithmetic unit in accordance with a position to which the stage moves), wherein interference variables in the positioning of the sample support are compensated for (column 11 lines 6-18 teaches that that the arithmetic unit 17 calculates the position of each axis of the stage from measurement information obtained by the senor, and calculates a difference from a target stage position. The arithmetic unit 17 calculates a stage driving amount from the difference, and calculates a current to be supplied to the linear motor) on the basis of the determined position of the sample support (Column 1 lines 46-48 teaches X laser interferometer for measuring an X-axis position emits a laser beam almost parallel to the X-axis).
Hattori in view of Nefzi does not specifically disclose the determined extent of the sample support.
Puerto teaches measuring thermal expansion of the chuck in at least one dimension and adjusting the position of the chuck according to the measured thermal expansion of chuck (fig. 3, col 9 lines 64-67, col 10 lines 1-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hattori in view of Nefzi to include measuring the thermal expansion in multiple dimensions and adjusting the position of the sample accordingly, as taught by Puerto. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to allow for increased bandwidth in a control system, thus improving the ability to produce smaller features within a semiconductor chip layer and more accurate registration of the chip layers (Puerto col 10 lines 32-36).
Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Puerto fails to disclose that wherein the interference variables in the positioning of the sample support are compensated for with the piezo positioner.
Loopstra teaches a coarse positioning module (an X-Y table) with micrometer accuracies, onto which is cascaded a fine positioning module for correcting for the residual error to the last few nanometers. Commonly used actuators for such nano-positioning include piezoelectric actuators (col 1 lines 41-53).
Puerto teaches precisely positioning and adjusting the position of the chuck according to the measured thermal expansion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Puerto, to include the piezoelectric actuators for precise positioning, as taught by Loopstra. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to correct for the residual error of the coarse positioning module to the last few nanometers (Loopstra col 1 lines 41-53).
16. Regarding claim 6:
The modified invention above teaches the method according to claim 5. Hattori further discloses wherein the closed-loop control comprises compensating for tilting of the sample support (abstract section teaches a control unit that drives the stage on the basis of an error obtained in advance by the arithmetic unit in accordance with a position to which the stage moves) about the first tilt axis and/or the second tilt axis (column 11 lines 6-33 teaches that fig. 11 shows a control block where the arithmetic unit 17 calculates the position of each axis of the stage and performing servo control of the stage position and compensating for the error of an X-axis rotation angle and a Y-axis rotation angle).
Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Puerto fails to disclose that the compensation is made by the piezo positioner.
Loopstra teaches a coarse positioning module (an X-Y table) with micrometer accuracies, onto which is cascaded a fine positioning module for correcting for the residual error to the last few nanometers. Commonly used actuators for such nano-positioning include piezoelectric actuators (col 1 lines 41-53).
Puerto teaches precisely positioning and adjusting the position of the chuck according to the measured thermal expansion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Puerto, to include the piezoelectric actuators for precise positioning, as taught by Loopstra. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to correct for the residual error of the coarse positioning module to the last few nanometers (Loopstra col 1 lines 41-53).
17. Regarding claim 7:
The modified invention above teaches the method according to claim 1. Hattori further discloses that wherein the first axis is substantially orthogonal to the second axis and the first axis is substantially orthogonal to the third axis and the second axis is substantially orthogonal to the third axis (abstract section teaches that that the alignment stage includes plane mirrors which extend in two directions substantially perpendicular to each other, the two directions correspond to the x and y directions. Column 1 lines 62-63 teaches the z direction, which corresponds to the third axis, perpendicular to the X-Y plane).
18. Regarding claim 8:
Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Baggen, discloses the method according to claim 1. Hattori further discloses that wherein the first axis and the second axis run substantially horizontal (column 1 lines 30-32 teaches the stage moving on a two-dimensional plane (X-Y plane). Claim 11 teaches the stage as one which moves in a horizontal direction) and the third axis runs substantially vertical (column 7 lines 17 teaches that the Z-axis direction is a vertical direction).
19. Regarding claim 11:
Hattori discloses a device (fig. 7) for interference variable compensation during the positioning of a sample support (column 1 lines 40-57 teaches using interferometer for measuring the position of a wafer stage and positioning the wafer stage on the basis of position information obtained from the laser interferometer) comprising: the sample support (column 1 lines 45-46 teaches a wafer stage 1); a sensor support (column 5 lines 29-30 teach that the respective laser interferometers are attached to a lens barrel surface plate 7, which corresponds to the sensor support) with a first distance sensor for measuring the distance to a first side of the sample support (Column 1 lines 46-48 teaches a laser interferometer (3A-1) for measuring an X-axis position emits a laser beam almost parallel to the X-axis, detecting the relative driving amount of the wafer stage) and a second distance sensor for measuring the distance to a second side of the sample support opposite the first side (column 7, lines 53-54, fig. 7 teaches two X laser interferometer (3A-1 and 3C-1) are arranged on the front and rear sides of the wafer stage), a third distance sensor for measuring the distance to a third side of the sample support (column 4 lines 65-66 teaches that Y position on the wafer stage is measured by laser interferometer 3B-1 in fig. 10);
wherein the first and second distance sensors are configured to determine the distances substantially in parallel to a first axis (Column 1 lines 46-48 teaches a laser interferometer (3A-1) for measuring an X-axis position emits a laser beam almost parallel to the X-axis, detecting the relative driving amount of the wafer stage. As shown in fig. 7, X laser interferometer (3C-1) emits a laser beam almost parallel to the X-axis.), and the third sensor is configured to determine the distances substantially in parallel to a second axis different from the first axis (fig. 7 teaches that laser interferometer emits a light almost parallel to the y-axis, which is different from the x-axis); and
a control unit, wherein the device is configured to carry out a method (abstract section teaches a control unit that drives the stage on the basis of an error obtained in advance by the arithmetic unit in accordance with a position to which the stage moves) comprising:
measuring a distance with a first distance sensor of the sensor support to a first side of the sample support (column 5 lines 29-30 teach that the respective laser interferometers are attached to a lens barrel surface plate 7, which corresponds to the sensor support. Column 1 lines 46-48 teaches a laser interferometer (3A-1) for measuring an X-axis position emits a laser beam almost parallel to the X-axis, detecting the relative driving amount of the wafer stage) and measuring a distance with a second distance sensor of the sensor support to a second side of the sample support opposite the first side (column 7, lines 53-54, fig. 7 teaches two X laser interferometer (3A-1 and 3C-1) are arranged on the front and rear sides of the wafer stage), wherein the distances are determined substantially in parallel to a first axis (as shown in fig. 7, X laser interferometer (3C-1) emits a laser beam almost parallel to the X-axis. Column 1 lines 46-48 teaches X laser interferometer for measuring an X-axis position emits a laser beam almost parallel to the X-axis);
measuring a distance with a third distance sensor of the sensor support to a third side of the sample support (column 4 lines 65-66 teaches that Y position on the wafer stage is measured by laser interferometer 3B-1 in fig. 10), wherein the distances are determined substantially in parallel to a second axis different from the first axis (fig. 7 teaches that laser interferometer emits a light almost parallel to the y-axis, which is perpendicular to the x-axis);
Hattori fails to disclose a fourth distance sensor for measuring the distance to a fourth side of the sample support opposite the third side and that the fourth distance sensor is configured to determine the distances substantially in parallel to a second axis different from the first axis; measuring a distance with a fourth distance sensor of the sensor support to a fourth side of the sample support opposite the third side.
However, Nefzi discloses a fourth distance sensor for measuring the distance to a fourth side of the sample support (pg. 2 teaches a second sensor group (20), which detects actual distances along a y axis) opposite the third side (pg. 2 teaches that the second sensor group comprises preferably two secondary sensor devices. Pg. 2 teaches that the sensing devices are mounted on opposite sides of the optical element) and that the fourth distance sensor is configured to determine the distances substantially in parallel to a second axis different from the first axis (pg. 2 teaches a second sensor group (20), which detects actual distances along y axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hattori in view of Nefzi to include a fourth distance sensor for measuring the distance to a fourth side of the sample support opposite the third side and that the fourth distance sensor is configured to determine the distances substantially in parallel to a second axis different from the first axis and measuring a distance with a fourth distance sensor of the sensor support to a fourth side of the sample support opposite the third side. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to filter out the target movement with the second sensor group (as taught in Nefzi pg. 4).
Hattori in view of Nefzi does not specifically note determining the position and the extent of the sample support based upon the distances measured parallel to the first axis and the distances measured parallel to the second axis.
Puerto teaches measuring thermal expansion of the chuck in at least one dimension and adjusting the position of the chuck according to the measured thermal expansion of chuck (fig. 3, col 9 lines 64-67, col 10 lines 1-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hattori in view of Nefzi to include measuring the thermal expansion in multiple dimensions and adjusting the position of the sample accordingly, as taught by Puerto. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to allow for increased bandwidth in a control system, thus improving the ability to produce smaller features within a semiconductor chip layer and more accurate registration of the chip layers (Puerto col 10 lines 32-36).
Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Puerto fails to disclose a piezo positioner that carries the sample support; and positioning the sample support relative to the sensor support using a piezo positioner based upon the determined position and the determined extent of the sample support.
Loopstra teaches a coarse positioning module (an X-Y table) with micrometer accuracies, onto which is cascaded a fine positioning module for correcting for the residual error to the last few nanometers. Commonly used actuators for such nano-positioning include piezoelectric actuators (col 1 lines 41-53).
Puerto teaches precisely positioning and adjusting the position of the chuck according to the measured thermal expansion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Puerto, to include the piezoelectric actuators for precise positioning, as taught by Loopstra. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to correct for the residual error of the coarse positioning module to the last few nanometers (Loopstra col 1 lines 41-53).
20. Regarding claim 13:
The modified invention above teaches the device according to claim 11. Hattori further discloses that wherein the first distance sensor, second distance sensor, third distance sensor are each a capacitive distance sensor or an interferometric distance sensor (column 4 lines 65-66 teaches that X and Y positions on the wafer stage are measured by laser interferometers (3A-1 and 3B-1). Column 7 line 53 teaches that 3C-1 is also a laser interferometer).
Hattori fails to disclose that the fourth distance sensor is a capacitive distance sensor or an interferometric distance sensor.
However, Nefzi discloses that the fourth distance sensor is a capacitive distance sensor or an interferometric distance sensor (pg. 2 teaches a second sensor group (20), which detects actual distances along a y axis. Pg. 2 teaches that the second sensor group comprises preferably two secondary sensor devices. Pg. 3 teaches that at least one primary sensor device is designed as an interferometric sensor device and that an interferometer is used as a secondary sensor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hattori in view of Nefzi to include that the fourth distance sensor is a capacitive distance sensor or an interferometric distance sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification for detecting the actual distance to an optically reflective measurement target (as taught in Nefzi pg. 3) and to filter out the target movement with the second sensor group (as taught in Nefzi pg. 4).
21. Regarding claim 14:
The modified invention above teaches the device according to claim 13. Hattori further discloses that wherein the first distance sensor, second distance sensor, third distance sensor are each a laser interferometric distance sensor .
Hattori fails to disclose that the fourth distance sensor is a laser interferometric distance sensor.
Nefzi does not specifically disclose that the fourth distance sensor is a laser interferometric distance sensor. However, Nefzi discloses that the fourth distance sensor is an interferometric distance sensor (pg. 2 teaches a second sensor group (20), which detects actual distances along a y axis. Pg. 2 teaches that the second sensor group comprises preferably two secondary sensor devices. Pg. 3 teaches that at least one primary sensor device is designed as an interferometric sensor device and that an interferometer is used as a secondary sensor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hattori in view of Nefzi to include that the fourth distance sensor is a laser interferometric distance sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification for detecting the actual distance to an optically reflective measurement target (as taught in Nefzi pg. 3) and to filter out the target movement with the second sensor group (as taught in Nefzi pg. 4).
22. Regarding claim 15:
The modified invention above teaches the device according to claim 11. Hattori further discloses that wherein the sensor support (column 5 lines 29-30 teach that the respective laser interferometers are attached to a lens barrel surface plate 7, which corresponds to the sensor support) comprises: a fifth distance sensor for measuring the distance to the sample support (column 7 lines 57-59 teaches that the Z laser interferometers (3A-3, 3B-3, and 3C-3) can measure the Z-position of the wafer sage. Here interferometer 3B-3 corresponds to the fifth distance meter), wherein the fifth distance sensor is configured to determine the distances substantially in parallel to a third axis different from the first axis and the second axis (as shown in fig. 7 the Z laser interferometers (3A-3, 3B-3, and 3C-3) emits a light are reflected almost in parallel of the z-axis to determine the z-position).
23. Regarding claim 16:
The modified invention above teaches the method according to claim 4. Hattori further teaches a tilting about a first tilting axis of the sample support is determined from the distances determined by the sixth distance meter and by the seventh distance meter (column 7 lines 57-59 teaches that the Z laser interferometers can measure (3A-3, 3B-3, and 3C-3) can measure the X axis rotation angle) and/or a tilting about a second tilting axis of the sample support is determined from the distances determined by the fifth distance meter, sixth distance meter and seventh distance meter (column 7 lines 57-59 teaches that the Z laser interferometers can measure (3A-3, 3B-3, and 3C-3) can measure the Y axis rotation angle).
24. Regarding claim 17:
The modified invention above teaches the device according to claim 15. Hattori further teaches the sensor support further comprises: a sixth distance sensor for measuring the distance to the sample support (column 7 lines 57-59 teaches that the Z laser interferometers (3A-3, 3B-3, and 3C-3) can measure the Z-position of the wafer sage. Here, interferometer 3A-3 corresponds to the sixth distance meter), wherein the sixth distance sensor is configured to determine the distance substantially in parallel to the third axis (as shown in fig. 7 the Z laser interferometers (3A-3, 3B-3, and 3C-3) emits a light are reflected almost in parallel of the z-axis to determine the z-position).
25. Regarding claim 18:
The modified invention above teaches the device according to claim 17. Hattori further teaches that wherein the sensor support further comprises: a seventh distance sensor for measuring the distance to the sample support (column 7 lines 57-59 teaches that the Z laser interferometers (3A-3, 3B-3, and 3C-3) can measure the Z-position of the wafer sage. The interferometer 3C-3 corresponds to the seventh distance meter), wherein the seventh distance sensor is configured to determine the distance substantially in parallel to the third axis (as shown in fig. 7 the Z laser interferometers (3A-3, 3B-3, and 3C-3) emits a light are reflected almost in parallel of the z-axis to determine the z-position).
26. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Puerto, further in view of Loopstra, further in view of Hill (US 7379190 B2), further in view of Anonymous: “Piezo Controllers for Steering Mirrors”, (2008), Physik Instrumente, pg 1-14, www.nanopositioning.net/datasheets/Nanopositioning_Controllers_Steering_Mirrors.pdf (hereinafter referred to as PI).
27. Regarding claim 9:
The modified invention above teaches the method according to claim 1. Hattori further discloses the first distance sensor (fig. 7 element 3A-1), the second distance sensor (fig. 7 element 3C-1), the third distance sensor (fig.7 element 3B-1).
Hattori fails to disclose the fourth distance sensor.
However, Nefzi discloses the fourth distance sensor (pg. 2 teaches a second sensor group (20), which detects actual distances along a y axis. Pg. 2 teaches that the second sensor group comprises preferably two secondary sensor devices and that the sensing devices are mounted on opposite sides of the optical element)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hattori in view of Nefzi to include a fourth distance sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to further filter out the target movement with the second sensor group (as taught in Nefzi pg. 4).
Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Puerto fails to disclose the positioning of the sample support by the piezo positioner.
Loopstra teaches a coarse positioning module (an X-Y table) with micrometer accuracies, onto which is cascaded a fine positioning module for correcting for the residual error to the last few nanometers. Commonly used actuators for such nano-positioning include piezoelectric actuators (col 1 lines 41-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Puerto, to include the piezoelectric actuators for precise positioning, as taught by Loopstra. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to correct for the residual error of the coarse positioning module to the last few nanometers (Loopstra col 1 lines 41-53).
Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Puerto, further in view of Loopstra does not specifically note that wherein the first distance sensor, the second distance sensor, the third distance sensor, and the fourth distance sensor are each operated at a detection rate of between 1 Hz and 1 MHz.
Hill does not specifically disclose that wherein the first distance sensor, the second distance sensor, the third distance sensor, and the fourth distance sensor are each operated at a detection rate of between 1 Hz and 1 MHz. However, Hill teaches that a detector in an interferometry system can operate at about 1MHz or more (as taught in column 4 lines 47-54). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). As such, Hill’s teaching of a predetermined range of about 1MHz or more makes the claimed range of 1 Hz and 1 MHz obvious.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Puerto, further in view of Loopstra, further in view of Hill to include that wherein the first distance sensor, the second distance sensor, the third distance sensor, and the fourth distance sensor are each operated at a detection rate of between 1 Hz and 1 MHz. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to allow for precise and sensitive identification of the alignment feature (as taught in Hill column 4 lines 36-37).
Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Puerto, further in view of Loopstra, further in view of Hill fails to disclose that the positioning of the sample support by the piezo positioner takes place at a control rate of between 1 Hz and 1 MHz.
PI does not specifically disclose that the positioning of the sample support by the piezo positioner takes place at a control rate of between 1 Hz and 1 MHz. However, PI discloses that a piezo controller capable of a sampling rate, servo control of 20kHz (as taught in pg. 10 technical data for E-725). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). As such, Hill’s teaching of a predetermined frequency of 20kHz makes the claimed range of 1 Hz and 1 MHz obvious.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Puerto, further in view of Loopstra, further in view of Hill, further in view of PI to include that the positioning of the sample support by the piezo positioner takes place at a control rate of between 1 Hz and 1 MHz. Such modification would allow for high-performance drive electronics for nano positioning systems (as taught in PI pg. 9).
28. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Puerto, further in view of Loopstra, further in view of Sadeghian Marnani (US-10663874 B2).
29. Regarding claim 10:
The modified invention above teaches the method according to claim 1. Hattori further discloses that wherein the sample support carries a sample (claim 6 teaches an alignment stage which holds the wafer).
Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Puerto, further in view of Loopstra, fails to disclose that the sensor support carries a probe for interacting with the sample.
However, Sadeghian Marnani discloses that the sensor support carries a probe (column 7 lines 14 -16 teaches that the probe tip 31a is connected to the object stage 11 via a sensor stage 51) for interacting with the sample (column 2 lines 21-24 teaches that the probe tip is configured to perform an atomic force measurement of a force exerted via the probe tip on a surface of the second object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Puerto, further in view of Loopstra, further in view of Sadeghian Marnani to include that the sensor support carries a probe for interacting with the sample. Such modification would allow for an integrated device capable of controlling the object stage actuator as a function of the probe level distance and the measured force (as taught in Sadeghian Marnani column 2 lines 25-27).
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 LARRY LI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-4:30pm. 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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571) 272-2293. 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.
/LARRY LI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights