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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/06/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki et al. [US 2003/0179354 A1] in view of Smeets et al. [US 2018/0321593 A1].
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Araki et al. discloses a system (Figs. 11-14) / a method (paragraph [0054]) comprising:
a support table (218) comprising one or more protrusions configured to contact and support a substrate such that the substrate is suspended with respect to the support table (paragraph [0124 teaches one or more protrusions configured to support the substrate), wherein a sagging of the substrate when supported by the support table is based on a material and/or dimensions of the substrate (paragraph [0120] teaches wherein the substrate is sagging due to its own weight);
a pressure device (236) fluidly coupled to a gap between the substrate and the support table (as shown in Figs. 11-14) and configured to adjust a pressure on a side of the substrate such that the sagging is reduced, a controller configured to: determine a pressure difference between the gap and the ambience based on the first and second measurement signals; and control the pressure device to adjust the pressure at the gap based on the pressure difference such that the pressure difference generates a force on the substrate to reduce sagging of the substrate (paragraphs [0125] and [0147] teaches wherein the pressure inside the gap is adjusted to the outside pressure to prevent deformation of the substrate due to any difference in pressure above and below it, which enables the reticle to be held tightly against the reticle holder).
Araki et al. does not explicitly teach a first pressure sensor disposed at a gap between the substrate and the support table and configured to generate a first measurement signal; a second pressure sensor exposed to an ambience of the system and is configured to generate a second measurement signal; and a controller configured to: receive the first and second measurement signals; determine a pressure difference between the gap and the ambience based on the first and second measurement signals; and control the pressure device to adjust the pressure based on the pressure difference.
However, Smeets et al. a system for the correction of image errors in a lithographic apparatus comprising a controller to determine one or more adjustments based upon the determined pressure difference between a gap and an outside pressure (as shown in Fig. 3). Specifically, Smeets et al. discloses a first pressure sensor (31) disposed at a gap and configured to generate a first measurement signal; a second pressure sensor (32) exposed to an ambience of the system and is configured to generate a second measurement signal (as shown in Fig. 3, see also paragraphs [0059]-[0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a first and second pressure sensor to adjust for a pressure difference, as taught by Smeets et al., in the system of Araki et al. because such a modification provides a system wherein the controller is operable to determine one or more image error characteristics based upon the determined pressure difference and to determine the one or more adjustments based upon the determined image error characteristics (paragraphs [0002] and [0008] of Smeets et al.).
Regarding claims 2, 5, 8, 9 and 13, Araki et al. discloses wherein: the pressure device comprises a conduit (234) coupled to the gap and the pressure device is further configured to introduce and/or remove a pressurizing gas from the gap to adjust the pressure on the side of the substrate; and the pressure device is configured to generate a flow of pressurizing gas at the side of the substrate to adjust the pressure on the side of the substrate (as shown in Figs. 11-14, see also paragraphs [0125] and [0147] teaches wherein the pressure inside the gap is adjusted to the outside pressure to prevent deformation of the substrate due to any difference in pressure above and below it).
Regarding claims 6, 11 and 15, Smeets et al. discloses further comprising: an actuator configured to move the support table, wherein the pressure device is further configured to compensate a pressure change resulting from the moving; and a controller configured to control the pressure device to compensate the pressure change resulting from the moving (paragraphs [0006] and [0009] teaches wherein the controller may cause one or more actuators to make the one or more adjustments).
Regarding claim 12, Araki et al. and Smeets et al. discloses a lithography system comprising: an illumination system configured to illuminate a pattern of a patterning device; a projection system configured to project an image of the pattern onto a substrate; and a system (as shown in Figs. 1 of Araki et al. and Smeets et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the applied references does not teach “a pressure device fluidly coupled to a gap between the substrate and the support table” and “control the pressure device to adjust the pressure at the gap based on the pressure difference such that the pressure difference generates a force on the substrate to reduce sagging of the substrate”, see pages 6-9 of the remarks.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this instance, Araki et al. is relied upon to disclose a system comprising a pressure adjusting device to adjust the pressure between the reticle and the reticle stage, wherein the pressure inside the gap is adjusted to the outside pressure to prevent deformation of the substrate due to any difference in pressure above and below it, which enables the reticle to be held tightly against the reticle holder (paragraphs [0125] and [0147]). As such, Araki et al. implicitly teaches “adjusting the pressure at the gap based on the pressure difference such that the pressure difference generates a force on the substrate to reduce sagging of the substrate”. Smeets et al. is relied upon to disclose a first pressure sensor disposed at a gap and configured to generate a first measurement signal; a second pressure sensor exposed to an ambience of the system and is configured to generate a second measurement signal (as shown in Fig. 3, see also paragraphs [0059]-[0060]). Therefore, the combination of Araki et al. and Smeets et al. would have provide one of ordinary skill in the art a system wherein “a pressure device fluidly coupled to a gap between the substrate and the support table” and “control the pressure device to adjust the pressure at the gap based on the pressure difference such that the pressure difference generates a force on the substrate to reduce sagging of the substrate”.
As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection under 35 USC § 103 is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEORAM PERSAUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Minh-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.
/DEORAM PERSAUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights