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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments filed on Feb. 18, 2026 have been fully considered.
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 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.
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, 3, 4, 7-9, 11, 13, 14 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, 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), 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 a 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 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 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.
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).
Regarding claim 21, although Schreuder does not disclose wherein: the diameter of the apertures is in the range 50 μm to 1000 μm; and the pitch between adjacent apertures is in the range 1 mm to 3 mm, substrate holder having burls for supporting substrate is commonly known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plate with aperture diameter in the range of 50 μm to 1000 μm; and the pitch between adjacent apertures is in the range 1 mm to 3 mm depending on the diameter and the pitch of the burls in order to accommodate the burls and avoid deformation of the substrate.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-18, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Komine et al. (Komine) (2016/0225650).
Regarding claim 1 Komine discloses a structure (155, Fig. 2B) for use on a base surface (151) of a substrate holder (15), wherein the structure is substantially planar with a substrate holder facing surface (Fig. 2B) that is both securable to the base surface of the substrate holder and also removable from the base surface of the substrate holder (para 0029-0034), the structure comprising a plurality of apertures (1551) therethrough that are arranged such that a plurality of burls on the base surface may pass through the respective apertures (Fig. 2B, Fig. 3A-3C, para 0029-0034), wherein the diameter of the apertures is in the range of 50 μm to 1000 μm (para 0030). Komine discloses the structure (155) as a separate structure from the rest of the substrate holder (Fig. 2B, para 0029-0034) and inherently, it would be removable such that the structure is out of contact with the substrate holder (see MPEP 2114).
Alternately, although Komine 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.
Regarding claim 5, although Komine 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 substrate facing surface is inclined relative to the substrate holder facing surface; and/or 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 10 μm and 200 μm, Komine discloses that the structure (155) is movable along the burl (154, para 0033, Fig. 3C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to move the structure of Komine so that the distance between the substrate facing surface and a distal end of a burl of the plurality of burls is between 10 μm and 200 μm which is in the “range in which the upper surface of the movable bottom portion 155 is lower than the upper end of the pin 154” (para 0033) in order to avoid deformation of substrate.
Regarding claim 7, Komine 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. 2A, 3A, para 0029, 0031, 0032).
Regarding claim 8, Komine 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. 2B, para 0029, 0030).
Regarding claim 9, Komine discloses a substrate holder (Fig. 2B) configured to support a substrate (100, Fig. 9), the substrate holder comprising: a base surface (151); a plurality of burls (154) 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; and at least one structure according to claim 1 secured to the base surface (see above).
Regarding claim 10, Komine discloses wherein the at least one structure is a plurality of such structures secured to the base surface (Fig. 2B). However, the embodiment of Fig. 2B does not disclose wherein the structures each have a different thickness. Komine discloses in the embodiment of Fig. 15A and 15B, a single structure (161) having sloped surface with different thickness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality of structures each having different thickness in order to form the sloped shape in Fig. 15A or 15B in order to compensate for different deformation of the substrate.
Regarding claim 11, Komine discloses a substrate holder (Fig. 2B) and one or more structures (155) according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the substrate holder is configured to support a substrate (100, Fig. 9), and the substrate holder comprises: a base surface (151); and a plurality of burls (154) 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. 2B, 9).
Regarding claim 12, Komine discloses wherein the one or more structures is a plurality of such structures (155, Fig. 2B). However, the embodiment of Fig. 2B does not disclose wherein the structures each have a different thickness. Komine discloses in the embodiment of Fig. 15A and 15B, a single structure (161) having sloped surface with different thickness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality of structures each having different thickness in order to form the sloped shape in Fig. 15A or 15B in order to compensate for different deformation of the substrate.
Regarding claim 13, Komine discloses a lithographic apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising the substrate holder and one or more structures according to claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, Komine discloses method of adapting a substrate holder (Fig. 2B), the method comprising: obtaining a substrate holder that comprises a base surface (151); and securing one or more structures (155) according to claim 1 to the base surface, wherein the substrate holder is configured to support a substrate and the substrate holder comprises a plurality of burls (154) 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. 2B, 9).
Regarding claim 15, Komine discloses adapting the substrate holder by removing one or more of the one or more of the structures secured to the base surface (para 0033).
Regarding claim 16, Komine discloses a substrate holder system (Fig. 2B), comprising: a base surface (151); a plurality of burls (154) that project from the base surface and are configured to support a substrate (100, Fig. 9); and 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 (Fig. 3C). Komine discloses the plurality of structures (155) as separate structures from the rest of the substrate holder (Fig. 2B, para 0029-0034) and inherently, it would be removable such that the structure is out of contact with the substrate holder (see MPEP 2114).
Alternately, although Komine 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.
However, the embodiment of Fig. 2B does not disclose wherein the structures each have a different thickness. Komine discloses in the embodiment of Fig. 15A and 15B, a single structure (161) having sloped surface with different thickness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality of structures each having different thickness in order to form the sloped shape in Fig. 15A or 15B in order to compensate for different deformation of the substrate.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Komine discloses a substrate holder system (Fig. 2B), comprising: a base surface (151); a plurality of burls (154) that project from the base surface and are configured to support a substrate (100, Fig. 9); and a plurality of removable structures (155) on, or configured to be on, the base surface. However, the embodiment of Komine Fig. 2B does not disclose the plurality of removable structures each have a different thickness; and the plurality of removable structures each comprise an adhesive layer to adhere the structure to the base surface and/or each comprise one or more selected from: a thermoplastic material, polyether ether ketone or polyethylene. Komine discloses in the embodiment of Fig. 15A and 15B, a single structure (161) having sloped surface with different thickness. Komine also discloses in Fig. 15A and 15B, the structure (161) is formed as a part of the surface of the substrate holder (para 0073).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality of structures each having different thickness in order to form the sloped shape in Fig. 15A or 15B in order to compensate for different deformation of the substrate and to provide an adhesive layer so that the structure can be come more an integral part of the substrate surface since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 20, Kimone discloses wherein the plurality of removable structures are each formed with a plurality of holes (1151) so as to accommodate a portion of the plurality of burls (Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 21, although Komine does not specify wherein: the pitch between adjacent apertures is in the range 1 mm to 3 mm, substrate holder having burls for supporting substrate is commonly known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plate with the pitch between adjacent apertures is in the range 1 mm to 3 mm depending on the pitch of the burls in order to accommodate the burls and avoid deformation of the substrate.
Claim(s) 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komine et al. (Komine) in view of Sakamoto et al. (Sakamoto) (6,241,402).
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Komine discloses a substrate holder system (Fig. 2B), comprising: a base surface (151); a plurality of burls (154) that project from the base surface and are configured to support a substrate (100, Fig. 9); and a plurality of removable structures (155) on, or configured to be on, the base surface. However, the embodiment of Komine Fig. 2B does not disclose the plurality of removable structures each have a different thickness; and the plurality of removable structures each comprise an adhesive layer to adhere the structure to the base surface and/or each comprise one or more selected from: a thermoplastic material, polyether ether ketone or polyethylene. Komine discloses in the embodiment of Fig. 15A and 15B, a single structure (161) having sloped surface with different thickness. Sakamoto discloses a substrate holding section formed of polyether ether ketone (col. 4, line 37-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality of structures each having different thickness in order to form the sloped shape in Fig. 15A or 15B in order to compensate for different deformation of the substrate and to provide the structure made of polyether ether ketone as taught by Sakamoto to provide a material to effect the amount of pressure between the structure and the substrate since polyether ether ketone provides thermal stability and high mechanical strength and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 20, Kimone discloses wherein the plurality of removable structures are each formed with a plurality of holes (1151) so as to accommodate a portion of the plurality of burls (Fig. 3C).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, 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.
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).
Regarding claim 21, although Lafarre does not specify wherein: the diameter of the apertures is in the range 50 μm to 1000 μm; and the pitch between adjacent apertures is in the range 1 mm to 3 mm, substrate holder having burls for supporting substrate is commonly known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plate with aperture diameter in the range of 50 μm to 1000 μm; and the pitch between adjacent apertures is in the range 1 mm to 3 mm depending on the diameter and the pitch of the burls in order to accommodate the burls provide a stopping layer for the etch (para 0107).
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s amendments to the claims the rejections have been modified as indicated above.
In response to the amendment that the structure is removable such that the structure is out of contact with the substrate holder, the rejections have been modified to address the limitation using the previously cited references.
In response to the amendment that removed metal as one of the materials of the structure, Sakamoto et al. reference is cited which includes polyether ether ketone.
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 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 March 2, 2026