CTNF 18/584,481 CTNF 81922 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: STAGE APPARATUS, LITHOGRAPHY APPARATUS, AND ARTICLE MANUFACTURING METHOD COMPRISING A SUBSTRATE CHUCK DESIGN BASED ON EASE OF SEPARATION BETWEEN SUBSTRATE AND CHUCK Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-5, 7, 12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 ( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Masatomo {JP 2016157883 (A)}, herainfter Masatomo. A full English translation of Masatomo has been provided with this office action and all references to text of Masatomo are with respect to the provided full English translation . Regarding claim 1, Masamoto teaches a stage apparatus {best seen in Figure 2} comprising: a substrate chuck {20, described as "table (wafer chuck) 20" in para 32; see Figure 2 and 4} configured to attract and hold {para 33} a substrate {W, described as "wafer W" in para 32; see Figure 2} ; a pin {any one of 28A, 28B and 28C, described as "pins (pushing members) 28A, 28B and 28C” in para 34; see Figure 2 and 4} configured to be able to attract and hold the substrate, the pin being configured to be able to protrude from the substrate chuck through a hole {26, described as "through holes 26” into which “28A, 28B and 28C are inserted” in para 34; see Figure 2 and 4} in the substrate chuck {20} ; a driving portion {42, described as "driving motor 42” in para 37; see Figure 2} configured to move one of the substrate chuck and the pin relative to the other of the substrate chuck and the pin {para 37} ; and a control portion {25, described as "control unit 25” that controls “driver circuit 43” of 42; see para 41 and Figure 2} configured to control the driving portion {42} , wherein in a case where the substrate {W} and the substrate chuck {20} separate from each other {described as “wafer peeling” in para 51 and “detachment” in para 58} , the control portion {25} controls the driving portion {42} based on a first condition {para 41} related to easiness of separation {i.e. easiness of “wafer peeling” of para 51 or “detachment” of para 58} between the substrate {W} and the substrate chuck (20) - see para 52; also see para 58 . Regarding claims 2-3, Masamoto teaches the stage apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control portion {25} controls the driving portion {42} based on a second condition related to the relative movement in a case where the substrate and the substrate chuck separate from each other {i.e. “wafer peeling” of para 51 or “detachment” of para 58} , the second condition being set based on the first condition wherein (as recited in claim 3), the second condition includes one of a). an amount of movement of one of the substrate chuck and the pin during a period from when the pin contacts the substrate to when one of the substrate chuck and the pin is moved at a predetermined speed (para 54 describes that 25 “controls the amount of protrusion of the pins”; also see para 41 and 58} , and b). a standby time from when suction of gas in a space between the substrate and the substrate chuck is stopped {described as “vacuum adsorption holding” of W is “released” in para 52} to when the relative movement is started {i.e. prior to “wafer peeling” or “detachment” when relative movement is ongoing} . Regarding claim 4, Masamoto teaches the stage apparatus according to claim 1, comprising a measurement portion {60A, described as “load sensor 60A” that “detects load applied to the pin” in para 43} configured to measure a position of one of the driving portion, the pin, and the substrate chuck {a position of the pin is measured, to enable 25 to control “the amount of protrusion” of pin” described in para 53} , wherein the first condition is related to a preset difference between a target position {“first threshold” of “load” that stored by “memory unit” described in para 55} of a member including the measurement portion {60A} and a measurement result {described as “detected load” in para 55} of a position of the member measured by the measurement portion {60A} in a case where the driving portion is driven {para 56} . Regarding claim 5, Masamoto teaches the stage apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the first condition is related to a maximum value of the difference {i.e. difference between “first threshold” of “load” stored by “memory unit” and the “detected load”, as explained for claim 4} and during a period from when the substrate contacts the pin (i.e. when “load” is first “detected”} to when an entire surface of the substrate is separated { i.e. “peel the wafer W” as described in para 55} the substrate chuck {para 55} . Regarding claim 7, Masamoto teaches the stage apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a load sensor {60A, described as “load sensor 60A” that “detects load applied to the pin” in para 43} configured to measure a load on one of the driving portion, the pin, and the substrate chuck, wherein the first condition is a measured value of the load sensor {i.e. “detected load” in para 55} in a case where the substrate and the substrate chuck separate { i.e. “peel the wafer W” as described in para 55} from each other. Regarding claim 12, Masamoto teaches the stage apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the control portion controls the driving portion based on a second condition set selected based on the first condition from a plurality of sets of the second conditions preliminarily set (see rejection of claims 2-3 above) . Regarding claim 16, Masamoto teaches the stage apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising: a first stage {14, described as “loader section 14” in para 30} ; and a second stage {16, described as “inspection unit 16” in para 31} different from the first stage, wherein the control portion {25} controls at least one of the first stage and the second stage based on the first condition {para 41 describes "control unit 25” that controls “driver circuit 43” of 42; which are part of 16 shown in Figure 2} . Regarding claim 17, Masamoto teaches the stage apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the control portion {25} controls the driving portion {42} based on a result of weighting the first condition (as explained for claim 1, note that no specific weightage is recited for “weighting” and as such, it is inherent that some “weighting” exists) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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 CFR 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6, 9, 10-11, 13-14, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masamoto . Regarding claim 6, Masamoto teaches the stage apparatus according to claim 1, wherein t control portion {25} controls {para 41} the driving portion {42} in a case where the substrate and the substrate chuck separate from each other {i.e. “wafer peeling” explained for claim 1} but does not teach that the driving portion control is specifically by first condition, wherein “the first condition is a value of a drive current flowing to the driving portion”. However, Masamoto teaches that the driving portion {42} comprises a driving motor (para 37, especially 1 st sentence) and it is well known in the art to use electrical driving motors for which rotation characteristics such as starting, speed or stopping can be easily controlled by the driving current. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Masamoto so that the first condition is a value of a drive current flowing to the driving portion. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Masamoto for at least the purpose of using a well known variable to control the motor comprising the driving portion; e.g. making drive current 0 to stop the motor. Regarding claim 9, Masamoto teaches the stage apparatus according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the first condition is “related to at least one of an amount of warp of the substrate, surface roughness of one of the substrate and the substrate chuck, and flatness of the substrate chuck”. However, Masamoto teaches that the first condition may be related to an amount of movement of the pin during a period from when the pin contacts the substrate to when one of the substrate chuck and the pin is moved at a predetermined speed (para 54 describes that 25 “controls the amount of protrusion of the pins”; also see para 41 and 58}, and that load is constantly measured against a first threshold (para 56} to gradually decrease the force on the wafer and prevent damage to the wafer {para 56}. Given that Masamoto teaches preventing excessive force on the wafer, and such force can cause warping of the substrate (wafer) and consequently affect flatness of the substrate (wafer), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Masamoto so that the first condition is related to an amount of warp of the substrate. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Masamoto for at least the purpose of ensuring the process does not damage the substrate by a known mechanism such as warping that can happen if forces on the wafer are not controlled. Regarding claim 10, Masamoto does not directly teach the features recited in claim 10. However, claim 10 recites conditions related to control portion controlling driving portion parameters related to force (noting that physics dictates force = mass x acceleration), such as “acceleration of the relative movement”. Given that a higher acceleration results in higher force, it would be obvious that for a “a case where easiness of separation is high”; a lower force (and hence a lower acceleration) is sufficient compared to “case where the easiness of separation is low”, when a higher force (and hence higher acceleration) is required. Further, physics dictates “speed of the relative movement” is also related to acceleration – higher the speed achieved in a given time, higher the acceleration. Similarly, physics dictates distance or displacement in a given time or period is related to speed – higher the distance or displacement in a given time period, higher the speed. Thus, claim 10 is essentially saying “in a case where the easiness of separation is high”, the force is set lower; and the opposite is true for “a case where the easiness of separation is low”; i.e. a force has to be set higher for causing substrate and the substrate chuck to separate from each other, but using different (but related variables) such as acceleration, speed and distance/displacment (i.e. amount of movement). Given that Masamoto controls the force applied {i.e. control is based on measurements of “load sensor 60A” that “detects load applied to the pin” in para 43}, tt would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Masamoto to include the related teachings of claim 10, as per relationship explained above. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Masamoto for at least the purpose of using not only force measurement, but also measurement of related variables (such as acceleration, speed or distance) depending on availability of alternate sensors (e.g. using an accelerometer to detect acceleration rather than a force sensor). Regarding claim 11, Masamoto does not directly teach the features recited in claim 11. However, similar to claim 10, claim 11 also recites conditions related to control portion controlling driving portion parameters related to force; i.e. instead of control of force, it recited control of “one of an acceleration and a speed of one of the substrate chuck and the pin” (noting that “acceleration” and “speed” have already been addressed in claim 10); and as such, the rejection of claim 10 also applies to claim 11. Regarding claim 13, Masamoto does not directly teach the features recited in claim 13. However, similar to claim 10, claim 13 also recites conditions related to control portion controlling driving portion parameters related to force; i.e. instead of control of force, it recited control of “speed” at which “one of the substrate chuck and the pin is moved” (noting that “acceleration” and “speed” have already been addressed in claim 10); and as such, the rejection of claim 10 also applies to claim 13. Regarding claim 14, Masamoto teaches the stage apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control portion {25} controls {para 41} driving of the driving portion {42} based on a target value where the substrate and the substrate chuck separate from each other {i.e. “wafer peeling” explained for claim 1} , but does not teach that the target value is “based on a consine waveform”. However, Masamoto teaches that the driving portion {42} comprises a driving motor (para 37, especially 1 st sentence) and it is well known in the art to use electrical driving motors for which rotation characteristics such as starting, speed or stopping can be easily controlled by the driving current, and that typical alternating current motors run on a driving current that is a cosine wave (because alternating current is typically cosine waveform). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Masamoto so that the motor being controlled is driven by typical alternating current which is used to control the motor; i.e. the target value is “based on a cosine waveform. first condition is a value of a drive current flowing to the driving portion. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Masamoto for at least the purpose of using a well known variable such as alternating current driving the motor comprising the driving portion; e.g. switching off driving current to stop the motor. Regarding claim 18, Masamoto teaches an apparatus comprising a stage apparatus according to claim 1, but does not teach that the stage apparatus is part of a “lithography” apparatus, and also as such, does not specifically teach “a pattern forming portion configured to form a pattern on a substrate held on the stage apparatus”. However, Masatomo teaches that the stage apparatus is used as part of semiconductor manufacturing, where the substrate (i.e. wafer) undergoes various treatments to produce multiple chips, and their subsequent testing. Given that in the process of semiconductor manufacturing it is well known to include lithography used to form patterns such as patterns of dielectric layers, doped areas or conductive layers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Masamoto so that the stage apparatus is part of a “lithography” apparatus, and also as such, does not specifically teach “a pattern forming portion configured to form a pattern on a substrate held on the stage apparatus”. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Masamoto for at least the purpose of using the stage apparatus to hold the wafer without damaging it while performing various processes such as lithography base patterns to manufacture multiple chips from the semiconductor wafer. Regarding claim 19, Masamoto teaches an article manufacturing method comprising: causing a substrate chuck {20, described as "table (wafer chuck) 20" in para 32; see Figure 2 and 4} to attract and hold {para 33} a substrate {W, described as "wafer W" in para 32; see Figure 2} ; delivering the substrate attracted and held by the substrate chuck from the substrate chuck to a pin {any one of 28A, 28B and 28C, described as "pins (pushing members) 28A, 28B and 28C” in para 34; see Figure 2 and 4} by a relative movement {i.e. movement produced by "driving motor 42”, see para 37 and Figure 2} between the pin and the substrate chuck {para 37} , the pin being configured to be able to attract and hold the substrate and configured to be able to protrude from the substrate chuck through a hole {26, described as "through holes 26” into which “28A, 28B and 28C are inserted” in para 34; see Figure 2 and 4} in the substrate chuck after the forming; and manufacturing (such as performing production testing using probe 22 – see para 32) an article using the substrate, wherein in the delivery, the relative movement is based on a first condition related to easiness of separation {described as “wafer peeling” in para 51 and “detachment” in para 58} between the substrate {W} and the substrate chuck (20) - see para 52; also see para 58 . Masamoto does not teach the manufacturing method includes “forming a pattern on the substrate attracted and held by the substrate chuck” so that manufacturing an article for an article that “is having the pattern formed”. However, Masatomo teaches that the apparatus is used as part of semiconductor manufacturing, where the substrate (i.e. wafer) undergoes various treatments to produce multiple chips, and their subsequent testing. Given that in the process of semiconductor manufacturing it is well known to include forming patterns such as patterns of dielectric layers, doped areas or conductive layers (e.g. by lithography), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Masamoto so that the manufacturing method includes “forming a pattern on the substrate attracted and held by the substrate chuck” so that manufacturing an article for an article that “is having the pattern formed”. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Masamoto for at least the purpose of using the apparatus to manufacture semiconductor chips from semiconductor wafers, including all patterning and testing, without damaging the substrate while performing various processes . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masamoto in view of IDS reference Masayuki (JP2008205313A), hereinafter Masayuki. A full English translation of Masayuki has been provided with this office action and all references to text of Masayuki are with respect to the provided full English translation . Regarding claim 8, Masamoto teaches the stage apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a sensor {60A, para 43} but does not teach that the sensor is “a pressure sensor” that is configured to measure “pressure in a space between the substrate and the substrate chuck, wherein the first condition is a measured value of the pressure sensor”. Masayuki describes a stage apparatus {see para 3 and Figures 1-3 and 7} a substrate chuck {3, described as "serves as mounting base" in para 3} configured to attract and hold a substrate {2, described as "wafer 2" in para 3} and a pin (15, lift pin, Figure 1) that can protrude from the substrate chuck through a hole in the substrate chuck, wherein the stage apparatus further comprises a pressure sensor {para 29, Figure 1, pressure measuring device 13} that measures pressure in a space between the substrate and the substrate chuck {para 6, 1 st sentence, also see para 29} , in order to detect a dechuck abnormality {para 29}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Masamoto so that the sensor is “a pressure sensor” that is configured to measure “pressure in a space between the substrate and the substrate chuck, wherein the first condition is a measured value of the pressure sensor”. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Masamoto for at least the purpose of using a known variable to detect dechuck abnormality {para 29 of Masayuki} . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masamoto in view of Sunaba (US 20210366750), hereinafter Sunaba . Regarding claim 15, Masamoto teaches the stage apparatus according to claim 2, but is silent about “learning based” operation; i.e. does not teach wherein the control portion “performs learning based on information about previous separation of the substrate from the substrate chuck”, and wherein the second condition for separating a subsequent substrate from the substrate chuck “is determined based on a result of the learning”. Sunaba (US 20210366750) teaches stage apparatus {10, described as " substrate processing apparatus 10" in para 57} comprising a substrate chuck {14, described as "electrostatic chuck 14" in para 57} configured to attract and hold {i.e. "electrostatically attracts the substrate S" – see para 57} a substrate {S, described as "substrate S" in para 57} , a pin {15, described as "lift pins 15" in para 57} and a control unit {3, described as "detection section 3" in para 65}, wherein the control portion performs learning {i.e. learning based on "learning model 31" described in para 71} based on information about previous separation of the substrate from the substrate chuck (para 74) , and wherein the second condition for separating a subsequent substrate from the substrate chuck is determined based on a result of the learning (para 73). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Masamoto to use a learning model so that the control portion “performs learning based on information about previous separation of the substrate from the substrate chuck”, and wherein the second condition for separating a subsequent substrate from the substrate chuck “is determined based on a result of the learning”. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Masamoto for at least the purpose of using learning models to make process improvements (see para 39 of Sunaba, especially last sentence) without human intervention . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lof (US 20080030701) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AJAY ARORA whose telephone number is (571)272-8347. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 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, Drew Richards can be reached at 5712721736. 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. /AJAY ARORA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/584,481 Page 2 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/584,481 Page 3 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/584,481 Page 4 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/584,481 Page 5 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/584,481 Page 6 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/584,481 Page 7 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/584,481 Page 8 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/584,481 Page 9 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/584,481 Page 10 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/584,481 Page 11 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/584,481 Page 12 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/584,481 Page 13 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/584,481 Page 14 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/584,481 Page 15 Art Unit: 2892
Prosecution Insights