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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-10, and 15 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.
4. Regarding claims 1 and 5, the phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and are also rejected as indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
5. Regarding claims 3-4, 7-8, and 15, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-8, 11-15 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 Baggen (WO 2019068601).
9. 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), in particular during probe microscopy (the limitation at issue is both exemplary claim language and a non-limiting preamble disclosure. As such, the limitation has no patentable weight), 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 parasitic target movement with the second sensor group (as taught in Nefzi pg. 4).
Hattori in view of Nefzi fails to disclose positioning the sample support relative to the sensor support using a piezo positioner.
However, Baggen discloses positioning the sample support relative to the sensor support using a piezo positioner ([0044] teaches positioning the support stage using a piezo component such as a piezo actuator).
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 Baggen to include positioning the sample support relative to the sensor support using a piezo positioner. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to achieve highly precise control of movement.
10. Regarding claim 2:
Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Baggen, discloses the method according to claim 1. Hattori further discloses that that wherein the position of the sample support along the first axis are determined from the distances parallel to the 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), and/or wherein the position along the second axis are determined from the distances parallel to the second axis (column 4 lines 65-66 teaches that Y position on the wafer stage is measured by laser interferometer 3B-1 in fig. 10. Fig. 7 teaches that laser interferometer emits a light almost parallel to the y-axis).
Hattori fails to disclose that the extent of the sample support along the first axis are determined from the distances parallel to the first axis and/or the extent along the second axis are determined from the distances parallel to the second axis.
Nefzi does not specifically disclose that the extent of the sample support along the first axis are determined from the distances parallel to the first axis and/or the extent along the second axis are determined from the distances parallel to the second axis. However, Nefzi discloses a method for distinguishing between actual position changes and parasitic changes, which corresponds to extent, by comparing measurements from opposing sensors (pg. 4 teaches that if the change in the secondary actual distances detected by the secondary sensor devices by means of secondary measurement targets attached to opposite sides of the optical element are identical, a parasitic target movement can be concluded. Only if the actual distance on one of the two sides increases, while the actual distance on the other side decreases equally, can be concluded that an actual movement 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 that the extent of the sample support along the first axis are determined from the distances parallel to the first axis and/or the extent along the second axis are determined from the distances parallel to the second axis. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to distinguish between the actual movement and the parasitic movement to filter out the parasitic target movement (as taught in Nefzi pg. 4).
11. Regarding claim 3:
Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Baggen, discloses 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), preferably 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).
12. Regarding claim 4:
Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Baggen, discloses 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), wherein preferably 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).
13. Regarding claim 5:
Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Baggen discloses 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 distances determined with the first distance sensor 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 with the second distance sensor parallel to the 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),
in particular the determined position of the sample support along the first 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), and the distances determined with the third distance sensor parallel to the second axis, in particular the determined position of the sample support along the second axis (column 4 lines 65-66 teaches that Y position on the wafer stage is measured by laser interferometer 3B-1 in fig. 10) and optionally the distances determined with the fifth distance sensor and/or sixth distance sensor and/or seventh distance sensor parallel to 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. Here, interferometer 3B-3 corresponds to the fifth distance meter, interferometer 3A-3 corresponds to the sixth distance meter, and interferometer 3C-3 corresponds to the seventh distance meter. 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).
Hattori fails to disclose the determined extent of the sample support along the first axis, and the distance determined with the fourth distance sensor parallel to the second axis, in particular the extent of the sample support along the second axis.
Nefzi does not specifically disclose the determined extent of the sample support along the first axis, and the distance determined with the fourth distance sensor parallel to the second axis, in particular the extent of the sample support along the second axis. However, Nefzi discloses a method for distinguishing between actual position changes and parasitic changes, which corresponds to extent, by comparing measurements from opposing sensors (pg. 4 teaches that if the change in the secondary actual distances detected by the secondary sensor devices by means of secondary measurement targets attached to opposite sides of the optical element are identical, a parasitic target movement can be concluded. Only if the actual distance on one of the two sides increases, while the actual distance on the other side decreases equally, can be concluded that an actual movement 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 the determined extent of the sample support along the first axis, and the distance determined with the fourth distance sensor parallel to the second axis, in particular the extent of the sample support along the second axis. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to distinguish between the actual movement and the parasitic movement to filter out the parasitic target movement (as taught in Nefzi pg. 4).
Hattori in view of Nefzi fails to disclose that wherein the interference variables in the positioning of the sample support are compensated for with the piezo positioner.
However, Baggen discloses disclose that wherein the interference variables in the positioning of the sample support are compensated for with the piezo positioner ([0063]-[0064] teaches methods of compensating for errors during the positioning of object table 3. [0044] teaches positioning the support stage using a piezo component such as a piezo actuator).
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 Baggen to include that wherein the interference variables in the positioning of the sample support are compensated for with the piezo positioner. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to achieve highly precise control of movement.
14. Regarding claim 6:
Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Baggen, discloses the method according to claim 4. 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 fails to disclose that the compensation is made by the piezo positioner.
However, Baggen discloses that the compensation is made by the piezo positioner ([0044] teaches positioning the support stage using a piezo component such as a piezo actuator).
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 Baggen to include that the compensation is made by the piezo positioner. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to achieve highly precise control of movement.
15. Regarding claim 7:
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 is substantially orthogonal to the second axis and preferably the first axis is substantially orthogonal to the third axis and preferably 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).
16. 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 preferably the third axis runs substantially vertical (column 7 lines 17 teaches that the Z-axis direction is a vertical direction).
17. 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).
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.
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. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to distinguish between the actual movement and the parasitic movement to filter out the parasitic target movement (as taught in Nefzi pg. 4).
Hattori in view of Nefzi fails to disclose a piezo positioner that carries the sample support.
However, Baggen discloses a piezo positioner that carries the sample support ([0044] teaches positioning the support stage using a piezo component such as a piezo actuator).
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 Baggen to include a piezo positioner that carries the sample support. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to achieve highly precise control of movement.
18. Regarding claim 12:
Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Baggen discloses the device according to claim 11. Hattori further discloses a control unit (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 the device (fig. 7) is configured to carry a method 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 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 distinguish between the actual movement and the parasitic movement to filter out the parasitic target movement (as taught in Nefzi pg. 4).
Hattori in view of Nefzi fails to disclose positioning the sample support relative to the sensor support using a piezo positioner.
However, Baggen discloses positioning the sample support relative to the sensor support using a piezo positioner ([0044] teaches positioning the support stage using a piezo component such as a piezo actuator).
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 Baggen to include positioning the sample support relative to the sensor support using a piezo positioner. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to achieve highly precise control of movement.
19. Regarding claim 13:
Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Baggen discloses 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 distinguish between the actual movement and the parasitic movement to filter out the parasitic target movement (as taught in Nefzi pg. 4).
20. Regarding claim 14:
Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Baggen discloses 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 to distinguish between the actual movement and the parasitic movement to filter out the parasitic target movement with the second sensor group (as taught in Nefzi pg. 4).
21. Regarding claim 15:
Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Baggen discloses 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), preferably a sixth distance sensor for measuring the distance to the sample support, preferably 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. Here, interferometer 3A-3 corresponds to the sixth distance meter, and interferometer 3C-3 corresponds to the seventh distance meter), wherein the fifth distance sensor, preferably the sixth distance sensor, and preferably the seventh distance sensor are 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).
22. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Baggen, 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).
23. Regarding claim 9:
Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Baggen, discloses 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 parasitic target movement with the second sensor group (as taught in Nefzi pg. 4).
Hattori in view of Nefzi fails to disclose the positioning of the sample support by the piezo positioner.
However, Baggen discloses the positioning of the sample support by the piezo positioner ([0044] teaches positioning the support stage using a piezo component such as a piezo actuator).
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 Baggen to include the positioning of the sample support by the piezo positioner. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to achieve highly precise control of movement.
Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Baggen fails to 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.
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 discloses 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 Baggen, 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 Baggen, 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 Baggen, 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).
24. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Baggen, further in view of Sadeghian Marnani (US-10663874 B2).
Regarding claim 10:
Hattori in view of Nefzi, further in view of Baggen discloses 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 Baggen, 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 Baggen, 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
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
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881