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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on Aug. 31, 2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Comment
Regarding the added limitation that the structure is securable from beyond the burls in claim 1 and the structure becoming located beyond the burls in claims 1, 16 and 17, although the specification does not specifically disclose the exact language, the specification is clear that the structure is “removable” and being securable from beyond the burls and becoming located beyond the burls is implied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokita (JP 2003-37157 in IDS, translation provided with Office Action, paragraph numbers in rejection refer to the translation).
Regarding claim 1, Tokita discloses a structure (17, Fig. 4) for use on a base surface of a substrate holder (1), the base surface having a plurality of burls (2) protruding therefrom (Fig. 1, para 0016), wherein the structure is substantially planar with a substrate holder facing surface and that is both securable from beyond the burls onto the base surface of the substrate holder and also removable from the base surface of the substrate holder such that the structure is out of contact with the substrate holder and becomes located beyond the burls (Fig. 4), the structure comprising a plurality of apertures therethrough that are arranged such that the plurality of burls on the base surface may pass through the respective apertures (Fig. 4, para 0031). Although Tokita does not disclose wherein a diameter of the apertures is in the range 50pm to 1000um, and the pitch between adjacent apertures is in the range 1mm to 3mm, Tokita discloses that the holes must be such that the burls or pin (2) can pass through the holes in the structure (17, para 0031). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the diameter of the aperture in the range as claimed and the pitch between the apertures in the range as claimed depending on the diameter and the pitch of the burls or pins in order to accommodate the burls or pins.
Regarding claim 2, although Tokita does not disclose an adhesive layer on the substrate holder facing surface for adhering the structure to the base surface of the substrate holder, Tokita discloses an embodiment in which instead of the structure, vapor deposited chromium is used. The chromium deposit portion would be made integral or adhered to the base surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an adhesive layer on the substrate holder in order to adhere the structure to the base surface of the substrate holder so that the structure is held more stably on the substrate holder.
Regarding claim 3, Tokita discloses wherein the structure comprises one or more selected from: a thermoplastic material, polyether ether ketone, polyethylene or metal (aluminum, para 0031).
Regarding claim 4, Tokita discloses one or more elevation pin receiving openings arranged such that one or more elevation pins on the base surface may pass through the respective elevation pin receiving openings; and/or one or more extraction port openings arranged such that air flow through an extraction port of the substrate holder is not obstructed (para 0017, “internal piping for flowing a temperature-controlled fluid to control the temperature of the wafer 3”).
Regarding claim 5, although Tokita does not disclose wherein the structure comprises a substrate facing surface that is an opposing major surface to the substrate holder facing surface and the thickness of the structure is such that, when the structure is secured to a base surface of a substrate holder, the distance between the substrate facing surface and a distal end of a burl of the plurality of burls is between 10pm and 200pm, Tokita discloses in para 0033 the thickness of the structure must be thinner than the height of the burls or pin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the structure having a thickness such that the distance between the substrate facing surface and a distal end of a burl of the plurality of burls is between 10pm and 200pm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, although Tokita does not disclose wherein the thickness of the structure is less than 170pm, Tokita discloses in para 0033 the thickness of the structure must be thinner than the height of the burls or pin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the structure having a thickness less than 170pm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Tokita discloses wherein the substrate holder facing surface of the structure is at least partially annular, at least partially circular, or non-circular and non-annular (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Tokita discloses a substrate holder (1, Fig. 1, 4) configured to support a substrate (3), the substrate holder comprising: a base surface (Fig. 1, 4); a plurality of burls (2) protruding from the base surface, wherein each burl has a distal end and the plurality of burls are arranged such that, when the substrate is supported by the substrate holder, the substrate is supported by the distal ends of the plurality of burls (Fig. 1); and at least one structure (17, Fig. 4) according to claim 1 secured to the base surface (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Tokita discloses a substrate holder (Fig. 1, 4) and one or more structures (17, Fig. 4) according to claim 1, wherein the substrate holder is configured to support a substrate (3, Fig. 1), and the substrate holder comprises: a base surface (Fig. 1, 4); and a plurality of burls (2) protruding from the base surface, wherein each burl has a distal end and the plurality of burls are arranged such that, when the substrate is supported by the substrate holder, the substrate is supported by the distal ends of the plurality of burls (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Tokita discloses a lithographic apparatus (para 0036, 0040) comprising the substrate holder (Fig. 1, 4) and one or more structures (17) according to claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, Tokita discloses a method of adapting a substrate holder (1, Fig. 1, 4), the method comprising: obtaining a substrate holder that comprises a base surface (Fig. 1, 4), the base having a plurality of burls (2) protruding therefrom; and securing one or more structures (17, Fig. 4) according to claim 1 to the base surface, wherein each burl has a distal end, and wherein the plurality of burls are arranged such that, when a substrate is supported by the substrate holder, the substrate is supported by the distal ends of the plurality of burls (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Tokita discloses adapting the substrate holder by removing one or more of the one or more of the structures secured to the base surface (unlike the embodiment of Fig. 1, Tokita discloses the structure (17) that can be removed in Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 11, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Schreuder et al. (Schreuder) (WO 2021/032356 in IDS).
Regarding claim 1 Schreuder discloses a structure (30, Fig. 2) for use on a base surface (11) of a substrate holder (10), the base surface having a plurality of burls (20) protruding therefrom (para 0037), wherein the structure is substantially planar with a substrate holder facing surface (Fig. 2) that is both securable to the base surface of the substrate holder and also removable from the base surface of the substrate holder (para 0037-0039, 0059-0061), the structure comprising a plurality of apertures (31) therethrough that are arranged such that the plurality of burls on the base surface may pass through the respective apertures (Fig. 2, para 0037-0044). Schreuder discloses the structure (30) as a separate structure from the rest of the substrate holder (Fig. 2, para 0037-0044) and inherently, it would be both securable from beyond the burls onto the base surface and removable such that the structure is out of contact with the substrate holder (see MPEP 2114).
Alternately, although Schreuder does not explicitly disclose that the structure is both securable from beyond the burls onto the base surface and removable such that the structure is out of contact with the substrate holder and becomes located beyond the burls, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to remove the structure from the substrate holder, since Schreuder discloses in para 0041 that reducing the gap between the substrate W and the substrate holder and/or increasing flow rate used to clamp the substrate may have a detrimental effect on in-plane deformation of the substrate and since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art.
Further, although Schreuder does not disclose wherein a diameter of the apertures is in the range 50pm to 1000um, and the pitch between adjacent apertures is in the range 1mm to 3mm, Schreuder discloses that the holes (31) must be such that the burls or pin (20) can pass through the holes in the structure (30, para 0037). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the diameter of the aperture in the range as claimed and the pitch between the apertures in the range as claimed depending on the diameter and the pitch of the burls or pins in order to accommodate the burls or pins.
Regarding claim 3, Schreuder discloses wherein the structure comprises one or more selected from: a thermoplastic material, polyether ether ketone, polyethylene or metal (para 0038).
Regarding claim 4, Schreuder discloses one or more elevation pin receiving openings (32) arranged such that one or more elevation pins on the base surface may pass through the respective elevation pin receiving openings (para 0045, 0050); and/or one or more extraction port openings (12) arranged such that air flow through an extraction port of the substrate holder is not obstructed (para 0050).
Regarding claim 7, Schreuder discloses wherein the substrate holder facing surface of the structure is at least partially annular, at least partially circular, or non-circular and non-annular (Fig. 3, para 0038).
Regarding claim 8, Schreuder discloses wherein the outer perimeter of the substrate holder facing surface of the structure is less than the outer perimeter of the base surface of the substrate holder (Fig. 2, 3, para 0039).
Regarding claim 9, Schreuder discloses substrate holder (Fig. 2, 3) configured to support a substrate (W), the substrate holder comprising: a base surface (11); a plurality of burls (20) protruding from the base surface, wherein each burl has a distal end and the plurality of burls are arranged such that, when the substrate is supported by the substrate holder, the substrate is supported by the distal ends of the plurality of burls (Fig. 2); and at least one structure according to claim 1 secured to the base surface (see above).
Regarding claim 11, Schreuder discloses a substrate holder (Fig. 2) and one or more structures (30) according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the substrate holder is configured to support a substrate (W), and the substrate holder comprises: a base surface (11); and a plurality of burls protruding from the base surface (Fig. 2), wherein each burl has a distal end and the plurality of burls are arranged such that, when the substrate is supported by the substrate holder, the substrate is supported by the distal ends of the plurality of burls (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Schreuder discloses a lithographic apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising the substrate holder and one or more structures according to claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, Schreuder discloses a method of adapting a substrate holder (Fig. 2), the method comprising: obtaining a substrate holder that comprises a base surface (11); and securing one or more structures according to claim 1 to the base surface (see above), wherein the substrate holder is configured to support a substrate (W) and the substrate holder comprises a plurality of burls (20) protruding from the base surface, wherein each burl has a distal end, and wherein the plurality of burls are arranged such that, when the substrate is supported by the substrate holder, the substrate is supported by the distal ends of the plurality of burls (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lafarre et al. (Lafarre) (WO 2014/154428 in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Lafarre discloses a structure (22, Fig. 16, para 0106, 0110) for use on a base surface (Fig. 16) of a substrate holder (100a), wherein the structure is substantially planar with a substrate holder facing surface (Fig. 16) that is both securable to the base surface of the substrate holder and also removable from the base surface of the substrate holder (para 0105, attached by adhesive layer, so it would be removable when the adhesive layer is removed), the structure comprising a plurality of apertures (opening at the burl or projections 106) therethrough that are arranged such that a plurality of burls on the base surface may pass through the respective apertures (Fig. 15, 16, para 0106). Lafarre discloses the plurality of structures (22) as separate structures from the rest of the substrate holder (Fig. 16, para 0105) and inherently, it would be removable such that the structure is out of contact with the substrate holder (see MPEP 2114).
Alternately, although Lafarre does not explicitly disclose that the structure is removable such that the structure is out of contact with the substrate holder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to remove the structure from the substrate holder, in order to decrease the weight of the substrate holder for movement of the stage where necessary, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art.
Further, although Lafarre does not disclose wherein a diameter of the apertures is in the range 50pm to 1000um, and the pitch between adjacent apertures is in the range 1mm to 3mm, Lafarre discloses that the openings accommodate the burls (106) in the structure (22, Fig. 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the diameter of the aperture in the range as claimed and the pitch between the apertures in the range as claimed depending on the diameter and the pitch of the burls or pins in order to accommodate the burls or pins.
Regarding claim 2, Lafarre discloses an adhesive layer (32) on the substrate holder facing surface for adhering the structure to the base surface of the substrate holder (para 0105).
Regarding claim 6, Lafarre discloses wherein the thickness of the structure (22) is less than 170 μm (para 0099).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-21 are allowed.
Claims 10 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, neither Tokita nor Schreuder disclose the plurality of structure each having a different thickness.
Komine et al. (Komine) (2016/0225650) discloses a plurality of structures (155), wherein: the plurality of structures are each formed with a plurality of holes (1151) so as to accommodate a portion of the plurality of burls (154, Fig. 3C). Komine discloses moving the plurality of structures to different heights to change the gap between the top of the structure to the substrate (Fig. 5C, 7B, 7C), but the each structure has the same thickness. Komine does not disclose the plurality of structure each having a different thickness. The embodiment of Komine in Fig. 11-15 show flooring 160 with different height or thickness to accommodate a wafer having a saddle shape as shown in Fig. 7A (para 0060). However, the flooring 160 is not disclosed as being removable and the substrate holder is rotated to accommodate the wafer shape.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, similar to claim 16, none of the prior art of record teaches or disclose wherein one or more structures have different shapes or thickness.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s amendments to the claim 1 the rejections have been modified as indicated above.
Applicant argues that there is no evidence presented of why the particular diameter range and the pitch range would be obvious. The evidence is that the references disclose the structure having a particular diameter and pitch that accommodate the burls or pins. The diameter and the pitch of the apertures depend on the diameter and the pitch of the burls on the substrate holder. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the diameter and the pitch of the aperture to accommodate the burls. Otherwise the structures of the cited prior art reference would not be placed on the substrate holder.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER B KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Toan Ton can be reached at (571) 272-2303. 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.
/PETER B KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 September 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights