DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I and Species 2 is acknowledged. Applicant traverses on the ground that the applied Albert reference does not disclose the limitation “the upper side of the board being provided with a notch absorption layer which has a volume density such that the notch absorption layer can be compressed by a compaction in the layer volume in the case of mechanical actions by foreign particles, without compromising the flatness of the contact surface”, and therefore claim 1 includes a special technical feature that makes a contribution over the prior art (Reply at 1-2). This is unpersuasive for the reasons set forth in the Requirement for Restriction (and the § 102 rejection of claim 1 below). Albert discloses that the multilayer coating (“notch absorption layer”) 302 is resilient, and therefore would be capable of being compressed by a particle without compromising the flatness of the contact surface (Fig. 4; ¶ 0055-0059, 0062-0067). Notably, claim 1 does not specify the size of the particle, and “notch absorption layer” 302 may be one micron in thickness (id.), which would be capable of absorbing small particles, such as those in the 1nm to 10nm range. The Requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made final.
Applicant remarks that Fig. 4 is considered to be part of Species 2 (Reply at 2). However, upon further review, it appears that Fig. 4 is generic to both Species 1 and 2 as it is an image of just the “notch absorption layer”, which is present in both Species 1 and 2.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-20 are pending. Claims 8 and 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference number(s) not mentioned in the description: 21B (Fig. 1).
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 4 is a black/white photograph and visually unclear. It is difficult to see any detail in this photograph, other than a dark upper region with a triangular mark (indentation), a light lower region, and accompanying markings. In this instance, photographs are not the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(b)(1). In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(a)(1), black and white drawings are normally required. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). No new matter should be entered. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“to any” (claim 3, line 1) should be changed to --to--;
“in which - the multilayer laminate comprises the top layer, and” (claim 5, lines 1-2) should be deleted as this is substantively duplicative of a similar limitation in claim 20 (from which claim 5 depends);
“in which - the multilayer laminate comprises the adhesive layer,” (claim 7, lines 2-3) should be deleted as this is substantively duplicative of a similar limitation in claim 20 (from which claim 7 depends).
Examiner notes that the proper use of brackets as an indicator of a deletion requires the use of double brackets (note the improper use of single brackets in claims 3 and 5). 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(c)(2).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 1, 3, 5-7, 9, and 16-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the upper side of the board being provided with a notch absorption layer which has a volume density such that the notch absorption layer can be compressed by a compaction in the layer volume in the case of mechanical actions by foreign particles, without compromising the flatness of the contact surface”. This limitation is indefinite because the phrases “foreign particles” and “without compromising the flatness of the contact surface” are not claimed in any manner to limit the scope. For example, the size of the “foreign particles” is not specified, and it is unclear exactly what would constitute a situation where the flatness of the contact surface is compromised. Applicant provides one example of “without compromising the flatness of the contact surface” (Spec. p. 10, lines 28-37, Fig, 4). However, even in that example, Applicant states that “These results show that the flatness is substantially less compromised by the absorption effect of the notch absorption layer 21”. So it is unclear if the quantifiers stated in that passage would meet the limitation “without compromising the flatness of the contact surface” because Applicant appears to admit that there is still some flatness compromised. Therefore, the claim itself and the specification do not provide a standard for ascertaining the scope of this limitation. MPEP § 2173.05(b)(II). Claims 3, 5-7, 9, and 16-20 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 1.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “in which the volume density of the notch absorption layer is selected to be in the range of 90% to 10% of the volume density of a solid material of the notch absorption layer.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, does this mean that a particular layer or portion of the notch absorption layer has the recited volume density (and there is another “solid material” layer or portion) or does this mean that the entire notch absorption layer has the recited volume density? For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Albert
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 9, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20130301028 A1 (“Albert”).
Regarding claim 1, Albert discloses a holding device which is adapted to hold a structural part (Figs. 4-9; ¶ 0055-0059, substrate table WT), the holding device comprising:
- a base body comprising at least one board with an upper side (Figs. 4-9; ¶ 0055-0059 base body including board 300 with an upper side (or portion marked as WT in Figs. 8-9)), and
- a plurality of protruding studs arranged on the upper side of the board and forming a contact surface with a predetermined flatness for contacting the structural part (Figs. 4-9; ¶ 0055-0059, 0062-0067, 0091, 0095, 0010, studs 301 protrudes from the upper side of board 300 or studs 503 (Fig. 9), for forming a contact surface having a predetermined flatness for supporting a substrate),
the upper side of the board being provided with a notch absorption layer which has a volume density such that the notch absorption layer can be compressed by a compaction in the layer volume in the case of mechanical actions by foreign particles, without compromising the flatness of the contact surface (Figs. 4-9; ¶ 0055-0059, 0062-0067, 0091, 0095, 0010, multilayer coating 302 on top of board 300 and/or studs 301 or multilayer coating 503 (Fig. 9) has a “notch absorption layer” that inherently has a volume density, and is capable of being compressed by a small particle without compromising the flatness of the contact surface (¶ 0067, “It may be desirable to provide the multilayer coating 302 with a degree of resilience such that the multilayer coating undergoes a degree of compression...This provides a degree of cushioning”); see § 112(b) rejection re “foreign particles” and “without compromising the flatness of the contact surface”).
Regarding claim 3, Albert discloses the holding device of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses in which the notch absorption layer is formed from a ceramic or a metal or a ceramic and a metal (¶¶ 0057, 0107, the “notch absorption layer 303 or 503 is formed from TiN (ceramic) and/or Ti (metal)).
Regarding claim 18, Albert discloses the holding device of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses in which the notch absorption layer is formed from CrxN with 0.9 < x < 2.2 or from a compound CrxMyN with 0 < x < 2.2 and 0 < y < 1, wherein M comprises a further metal taken from the group consisting of Al, Si and Ti (¶¶ 0070-0078, CrN may be used for one of the layers of the “notch absorption layer”).
Regarding claim 19, Albert discloses the holding device of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses in which the notch absorption layer has a thickness in the range of 300 nm to 20 pm (¶¶ 0057-0059, 0069-0075, 0087-0088, 0065, “The multilayer coating 302 may for example have a thickness in excess of 100 nm”).
Regarding claim 20, Albert discloses the holding device of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses in which the upper side of the board is provided with a multilayer laminate which includes the notch absorption layer and at least one of a top layer which is arranged on the notch absorption layer, an adhesive layer arranged between the board and the notch absorption layer, and a crack mitigation layer which is adapted to deflect crack propagations (Figs. 4-9; ¶ 0055-0080, upper side of board 300 (or portion marked as WT in Figs. 8-9) has a multilayer laminate which includes the notch absorption layer (e.g., middle layers 313 and 311 of Fig. 4), top layer 310 (made of TiN), bottom adhesive layer 313 (made of Ti), and a crack mitigation layer bottom layer 313 (made of Ti) which is adapted to deflect crack propagations (see Spec. p. 10, lines 13-21; p. 6, lines 30-37, “The top layer and/or the adhesive layer can be manufactured, for example, from the same material as the notch absorption layer...The crack mitigation layer may be...of a material with an increased fracture strength, such as a metal, for example, that is capable of plastic deformation.”)).
Regarding claim 5, Albert discloses the holding device of claim 20 as applied above and further discloses in which - the multilayer laminate comprises the top layer, and wherein the top layer has a greater hardness and a smaller thickness than the notch absorption layer (Figs. 4-9; ¶ 0055-0080, top layer 310 (made of TiN) has a greater hardness and smaller thickness than the notch absorption layer (e.g., middle layers 313 (made of Ti) and 311 (made of TiN) of Fig. 4)).
Regarding claim 6, Albert discloses the holding device of claim 5 as applied above and further discloses in which - the top layer and the notch absorption layer are formed from the same material, and wherein the top layer has a greater volume density than the notch absorption layer (Figs. 4-9; ¶ 0055-0080, top layer 310 (made of TiN), notch absorption layer (e.g., middle layers 313 (made of Ti) and 311 (made of TiN) of Fig. 4), where the top layer has a greater volume density than the notch absorption layer due to the presence of layers 313 (made of Ti) in the notch absorption layer, where the density of Ti is lower than that of TiN).
Regarding claim 9, Albert discloses the holding device of claim 20 as applied above and further discloses in which - the multilayer laminate is structured in such a way that the studs are formed by the multilayer laminate (Figs. 4-9, the multilayer laminate forms the studs (Fig. 4, multilayer laminate 302 and 301 form the studs; Fig. 9, the multilayer laminate 503 forms the entirety of the studs)).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Albert in view of Choo
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130301028 A1 (“Albert”) in view of US 20200144098 A1 (“Choo”).
Albert pertains to a substrate holding device (Abstr.; Figs. 4-9). Choo pertains to a substrate holding device (Abstr.; Figs. 2-6). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 16, Albert discloses the holding device of claim 1 as applied above. Albert does not explicitly disclose in which the notch absorption layer is one of a porous layer, fibrous layer, or a porous and fibrous layer. However, the Albert/Choo combination makes obvious this claim.
Choo discloses in which the notch absorption layer is one of a porous layer, fibrous layer, or a porous and fibrous layer (Figs. 2-6; ¶¶ 0039-0062, porous layer 400b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Choo with Albert by modifying the notch absorption layer of Albert to include or be a porous layer. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because the porous layer would assist in providing airflow underneath the substrate to provide for cooling during processing and would also provide even suction force across the entire lower surface of the substrate to effectively hold the substrate without bending the substrate at local areas (Choo ¶¶ 0004, 0047-0048, 0081-0084). Albert appears to use an electrostatic-type wafer table WT (Albert ¶ 0064), but could easily be substituted for a vacuum-type wafer table (Albert ¶ 0033) because it is merely a design choice and is a common alternative to electrostatic-type wafer tables, where the presence of the porous layer would be advantageous.
Regarding claim 17, Albert discloses the holding device of claim 1 as applied above. Albert does not explicitly disclose in which the volume density of the notch absorption layer is selected to be in the range of 90% to 10% of the volume density of a solid material of the notch absorption layer. However, the Albert/Choo combination makes obvious this claim.
Choo discloses in which the volume density of the notch absorption layer is selected to be in the range of 90% to 10% of the volume density of a solid material of the notch absorption layer (Fig. 5; ¶¶ 0039-0043, pores of porous layer 400b are cylinder shaped with an average diameter of 100 μm, where the porous layer 400b thickness is 400 to 3000 μm).
The obviousness rationale is the same as for claim 16. With respect to the recited volume density range, Choo discloses cylinder shaped pores with an average diameter of diameter of 100 μm, where the porous layer 400b thickness is 400 μm (and Fig. 5 shows two to three such pores per instance of porous layer 400b), and would fall within the recited range. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the volume density range as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975). Without evidence of criticality or unexpected results, 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, 267 (CCPA 1976); MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Albert in view of Lei
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130301028 A1 (“Albert”) in view of US 5516367 A (“Lei”).
Albert pertains to a substrate holding device (Abstr.; Figs. 4-9). Lei pertains to a substrate processing chamber (Abstr.; Fig. 7). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 7, Albert discloses the holding device of claim 20 as applied above. Albert does not explicitly disclose in which - the multilayer laminate comprises the adhesive layer, wherein the adhesive layer and the notch absorption layer are formed from the same material and the adhesive layer has a greater volume density than the notch absorption layer. However, the Albert/Lei combination makes obvious this claim.
Lei discloses that titanium nitride can be an adhesive layer (2:38-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Choo with Albert by modifying the multilayer laminate 302 or 503 such that TiN makes up the bottom adhesive layer (e.g., by adding another layer of TiN 311 below the bottom Ti 313 (which can also be used as the adhesive layer). This modification would satisfy claim 7, where the adhesive layer (made of TiN) and notch absorption layer (e.g., middle layers 313 (made of Ti) and 311 (made of TiN) of Fig. 4) are made of the same material and where the adhesive layer has a greater volume density than the notch absorption layer due to the presence of layers 313 (made of Ti) in the notch absorption layer, where the density of Ti is lower than that of TiN) (Albert Figs. 4-9; ¶ 0055-0080). This would have been obvious because this is a design choice, where Albert states that the multilayer coating 302/503 may have “any suitable number of layers”, where additional layers provide for various thicknesses (and height) of the multilayer coating and would result in different holding device characteristics such as different resilience (Albert ¶¶ 0057-0059 (“it may be desired to form the multilayer coating with a thickness of around 1 micron”); ¶ 0067 (“If it is desired to provide a softer more resilient multilayer coating 302, then the proportion of Ti relative to TiN may be increased. If it is desired to provide a harder less resilient multilayer coating 302 then the proportion of Ti relative to TiN may be reduced.”); ¶¶ 0072-0077).
Status of Claims
Claims 2 and 4 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3, and 5-20 are pending. Claims 8 and 10-15 have been withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, and 16-20 are rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on Form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure because the references pertain to holding devices with a compressible layer, including holding devices for semiconductor wafers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/JOEL D CRANDALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights