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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-5 and 7-15 are pending. Claim 6 is canceled. Claims 8-12 and 14-15 remain withdrawn.
In view of the amendment, filed 04/28/2026, the following objections and rejections are withdrawn from the previous Office Action mailed 11/28/2025:
Claim objections
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
Nonstatutory double patenting rejections
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 13 is/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 “between the water inlets and the water outlet” in the last line. Amended claim 1 introduces multiple sets of water inlets and multiple water outlets. As such, the noted limitation is unclear as to which inlets and outlet the paths must be between.
Claim 3 recites the limitations “the set of water inlets” and “the water outlet” in lines 1 and 2, respectively. Amended claim 1 introduces multiple sets of water inlets and multiple water outlets. As such, the limitations in claim 3 are unclear as to which inlets and outlet are being referenced.
The indicated dependent claims are rejected for the reasons provided above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lue, US 20070000441 A1, in view of Kataoka, US 20190355598 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Lue discloses a chuck (substrate support 1100, Fig. 11A) for use in an imprinting apparatus (for supporting a substrate 1104 on its upper surface 1102a, Fig. 11A, [0123], and thus capable of being used in an imprinting apparatus) and configured to carry a substrate having a resist layer (configured to carry a substrate 1100, [0123], the substrate being, e.g., a wafer, [0110], therefore capable of carrying a substrate having a resist layer) wherein the chuck comprises a hollow cylindrical body (Figs. 11A-11D) having a top face and a bottom face (upper and lower faces, Figs. 11A-11G), wherein the top face and the bottom face each comprise an internal water channel arrangement (for top face – internal region 1120, Fig. 11A, [0125]; for bottom face – internal region 1122, Fig. 11A, [0126]),
Wherein the top face and the bottom face each comprise a set of water inlets and a water outlet (for top face – inlets 1108a on plate 1108, and outlet 1108b, Figs. 11A and 11D, [0125]-[0126]; for bottom face – inlets from holes 1126 of second plate 1110, and outlet to drain, Figs. 11A, 11D-11G, [0126]-[0127]),
Wherein the internal water channel arrangement of each of the top face and the bottom face provides a flow path between the set of water inlets and the water outlet for each of the top face and the bottom face, respectively (water flows, for top face, from its inlets 1108a to outlet 1108b, and for bottom face, from its inlets 1126 to its outlet at the drain, Figs. 11A-11G, [0125]-[0127]),
Wherein the internal water channel arrangement of the top face comprises a set of ridges (raised square boss structures 1116 on upper surface of first plate 1108, Figs. 11A, 11D, [0125]) forming discontinuous annular paths including staggered gaps between adjacent paths that define meandering paths between the water inlets and the water outlet (forming discontinuous annular paths around the raised bosses including gaps between the bosses such that water can flow in a meandering manner around the raised bosses between the inlets/outlet, Fig. 11D).
Lue does not specifically disclose the internal water channel arrangement of the bottom face also comprises a set of ridges forming discontinuous annular paths including staggered gaps between adjacent paths that define meandering paths between the water inlets and the water outlet.
In the analogous art, Kataoka discloses a temperature-controlled mounting table (Figs. 2-3). Kataoka discloses the table includes multiple stages of cooling flow paths (Figs. 2-3, flow paths 12 and 13 associated with the upper and lower faces, respectively, [0040]-[0042]). Kataoka teaches the internal water channel arrangement of the bottom face comprises a set of ridges (Fig. 5, valve plates 13b-13d, [0071]) for defining meandering paths between a water inlet and water outlet (Fig. 5, for deflecting the flow of coolant in the cooling flow path 13, [0071]) so that the coolant stays for a longer time and its temperature is made more uniform ([0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the internal water channel arrangement of the bottom face of Lue to comprise a set of ridges defining meandering paths between the water inlets and the water outlet in order to enable deflection of the coolant in the flow path so that its temperature is made more uniform, as taught by Kataoka.
Regarding claim 7, modified Lue discloses the chuck of claim 1, and Lue further discloses the internal water channel arrangement of the top face further comprises a set of pillars along the meandering paths (internal reinforcements 1103, Fig. 11C, [0123]). The combination as set forth above further discloses the internal water channel arrangement of the bottom face comprises a set of pillars along the meandering paths (Kataoka: rotation shafts 13b1-13d1 provided with the corresponding valve plates 13b-13d, Fig. 5, [0071]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lue, US 20070000441 A1, in view of Kataoka, US 20190355598 A1, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kazama et al., JP H0831755 A (Espacenet translation attached and referenced below).
Regarding claim 2, modified Lue discloses the chuck of claim 1. Lue does not disclose a lattice arrangement extending from the top face to the bottom face.
In the analogous art, Kazama discloses a mounting table 4 for a substrate such as a wafer W (Fig. 1, [0030]), the mounting table 4 including a refrigerant flow path 5 for temperature control of the mounting base ([0031]), wherein the refrigerant flow path 5 includes a heat transfer member 21 (Fig. 1, [0032]) depicted as a lattice structure made of heat sinks 23 extending between top and bottom faces which provide improved heat transfer efficiency (Figs. 1 and 4, [0034]-[0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chuck of Lue to include a lattice arrangement in the region 1114 through which thermal control fluid flows from the source ([0125], Fig. 11A), i.e., extending from the top face to the bottom face, in order to provide improved heat transfer efficiency as taught by Kazama.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lue, US 20070000441 A1, in view of Kataoka, US 20190355598 A1, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Tsuda et al., US 20210302846 A1.
Regarding claim 3, modified Lue discloses the chuck of claim 1, wherein the set of water inlets is arranged around a periphery of the chuck (outer water inlets 1108a of the top face being arranged around periphery, Fig. 11D). Lue broadly depicts the water outlet as directed to a side (Fig. 11A, 11E) and thus does not disclose the water outlet is arranged in the center of the chuck.
In the analogous art, Tsuda discloses a cooled substrate stage (Abstract) with multiple internal water channel arrangements (Figs. 1-2) wherein the water outlet is arranged in the center of the chuck such that it can be discharged to the outside from a lower end of the shaft (Figs. 1-2, return flow path through hollow 42 in shaft 4b, [0025], [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the water outlet of Lue is arranged in the center of the chuck in order to implement a suitable discharge configuration for the outlet for removing the return flow of the coolant from the system, as taught by Tsuda.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lue, US 20070000441 A1, in view of Kataoka, US 20190355598 A1, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Parkhe, US 20160148828 A1.
Regarding claims 4-5, modified Lue discloses the chuck of claim 1, wherein the chuck comprises a set of ducts extending between the top and bottom faces (structures in region 1114 for flowing thermal control fluid, Figs. 11A, 11D, [0125]), with ducts between the water inlets of the top face and corresponding water inlets of the bottom face (boss structures 1124, Fig. 11D, [0126]), and with a duct between the water outlet of the top face and the water outlet of the bottom face (boss structures 1124, Fig. 11D, [0126]). Lue does not disclose the ducts each comprise a stress reduction feature comprising a bellows structure.
In the analogous art, Parkhe teaches providing fluid conduits for a chuck assembly with a bellows structure (bellows 110, Fig. 8, [0048]-[0049]). Parkhe teaches that bellows structures enable axial extension and retraction to accommodate vertical movement of the chuck body that may occur during loading or unloading from the chucking surface while maintaining fluid tight connections ([0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ducts of Lue to include a stress reduction feature such as a bellows structure in order to provide the capability of axial extension or retraction to accommodate movement during loading or unloading of a substrate from the chuck surface while maintaining fluid connections, as taught by Parkhe.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lue, US 20070000441 A1, in view of Kataoka, US 20190355598 A1, as applied to claim 1, in view of Yoshida, US 20100273114 A1.
Regarding claim 13, modified Lue discloses the chuck of claim 1. Lue does not disclose the chuck comprises a set of position sensors for measuring a distance from a surface of the chuck to a first carrier.
In the analogous art, Yoshida discloses providing a chuck (wafer stage 10, Fig. 1) with a set of position sensors for measuring a distance from a surface of the chuck to a first carrier (two-dimensional positions of a reticle stage, i.e., carrier, and wafer stage are measured by measurement devices each including a reference mirror 11 and laser interferometer 12, [0037], Fig. 1). Yoshida teaches the measurement devices enable synchronous control of positions of the stage and other elements moving relative to the stage ([0036]-[0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chuck to include a set of position sensors for measuring a distance from a surface of the chuck to a first carrier in order to provide the capability of accurate and synchronous control of the chuck position relative to other moving elements of the processing system, as taught by Yoshida.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding amended claim 1, Applicant argues (pp. 7-8) that Lue does not disclose ridges for defining meandering paths. Applicant annotates figures from Lue and the instant application illustrating possible flow paths.
This argument is not found persuasive. Applicant’s illustrated flow paths depict individual examples of how a fluid could possibly flow from an inlet to an outlet but the flow paths of Lue are not limited to those depicted by Applicant. Fluid entering from the numerous raised boss openings 1108a on the plate 1108 of Lue can exit through an outlet opening 1108b not limited to the outlet immediately to the left of the inlet as annotated, and the raised boss structures along the flat plate provide obstructions in the potential flow paths of a fluid such that its flow is interrupted along the plate surface.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (e.g., a particular version of “meandering” as depicted in Applicant’s annotated instant Fig. 11) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the claims are to an apparatus and must be distinguished by particular structure. Since the structure of the prior art apparatus also provides raised obstructions along the possible fluid flow paths between the inlets and an outlet, it defines meandering fluid flow paths.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant argues (pp. 9-10) that Lue does not disclose ducts that connect a water inlet of the top face with a water inlet of the bottom face. Applicant argues the same with respect to the outlets. Applicant disagrees that the boss structures 1124 form such ducts. Applicant argues that the outlet of the top face is connected to the inlet of the bottom face.
These arguments are not found persuasive. The examiner notes that the claims recite that the ducts are “between” the inlets and “between” the outlets, not that they “connect” specific inlets/outlets as argued. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Still, the boss structures 1124 are between and connect a water inlet of the top face to a water inlet of the bottom face as water flows from the water inlet 1108a of the top face through the opening 1108b through the boss structure 1124 and to the opening holes 1126 that are inlets of the bottom face. Due to the presence of the ducts 1124, the inlets 1108a and 1126 of the top and bottom face, respectively, are connected. The same is true for the outlets 1108b of the top face being connected to the outlet of the bottom face. A duct can be connected to both an outlet of the top face and an inlet of the bottom face while also being between the inlets of the top face and the inlets of the bottom face, and between the outlets of the top and bottom faces, as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2018093213 A1, Yu et al. disclose a cooling chuck with heat transfer fins 30/32 located in coolant channels for creating vortex flows (Figs. 1-3).
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 JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights