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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In para 0009 and 0041, the size of piezoelectric device is disclosed as 0.1 mm*0.1 mm to 5 mm*5 mm. It is not clear if the size refers to height or some other dimension. Further, it is not clear what “*” means.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “wafer height fine-tuning device” in claims 1 and 11 and “exposure chuck height adjustment device” in claims 2 and 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 2-10 and 13-20 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 limitation “exposure chuck height adjustment device” of claims 2 and 13 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not disclose what the device is that adjusts the exposure chuck height. The specification is silent on how the exposure chuck height is adjusted, but discloses merely that it is adjusted by the exposure chuck height adjustment device 114. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
In order to expedite prosecution, it is assumed that any device that adjusts the height of exposure chuck, including piezoelectric device, or other similar device is the claimed exposure chuck height adjustment device.
Regarding claim 4, it is not clear if the size refers to height or some other dimension. Further, it is not clear what “*” means. In order to expedite prosecution, it is assumed that the size refers to the height and the range of the height is 0.1 mm to 5 mm.
The remaining claims, not specifically mentioned, are rejected for incorporating the defects from the base claim by dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stagaman (5,563,684).
Regarding claim 1, Stagaman discloses an exposure apparatus (Fig. 3), comprising: an exposure chuck to fix a wafer (16); and a wafer height fine-tuning device (28) disposed between the exposure chuck (30) and the wafer to adjust heights of a local area of the wafer (col. 5, line 47 – col. 6, line 17, “the wafer modulator 28 actuates the adjustable pins 26 by extending selected pins and retracting other pins to temporarily bend (or modulate) that portion of the wafer surface”).
Regarding claim 2, Stagaman discloses wherein the exposure chuck comprises an exposure chuck height adjustment device (32) to adjust heights of the exposure chuck so as to further adjust heights of the wafer (col. 5, lines 47-65, field to field leveling and tilting motion).
Regarding claim 11, Stagaman discloses an exposure apparatus (Fig. 3) control method, comprising: providing an exposure chuck (30); and fixing a wafer (16) on the exposure chuck, wherein a wafer height fine-tuning device (28) is further disposed between the exposure chuck and the wafer to adjust heights of a local area of the wafer (col. 5, line 47 – col. 6, line 17, “the wafer modulator 28 actuates the adjustable pins 26 by extending selected pins and retracting other pins to temporarily bend (or modulate) that portion of the wafer surface”).
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) 3-6 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stagaman in view of Poock et al. (Poock) (2010/0112468).
Regarding claim 3, Stagaman discloses the claimed invention as discussed above. Stagaman further discloses that the adjustable pins 26 of the wafer height fine-tuning device is actuated by amounts of one micron or fractions thereof to adjust the heights of a local area of the wafer, but Stagaman does not disclose wherein the wafer height fine-tuning device comprises a plurality of inverse piezoelectric devices directly contacting the wafer. Poock discloses an exposure apparatus (Fig. 1h, para 0032) comprising: an exposure chuck (120, 110) and a wafer height fine-tuning device (120) to adjust height of a local area of the wafer (Fig. 1a-1c, para 0024-0026). Poock discloses wherein the wafer height fine-tuning device comprises a plurality of inverse piezoelectric devices (121, Fig. 1a, 1b) directly contacting the wafer (inverse piezoelectric devices apply electric field to a piezoelectrical material causing it to change shape, converting electrical energy into mechanical energy, which is disclosed in para 0027). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the inverse piezoelectric devices of Poock to the invention of Stagaman to control the adjustable pins in order to control the pins with high sensitivity and fast response time.
Regarding claim 4, Stagaman does not disclose wherein a size of one of the inverse piezoelectric devices is about 0.1 mm to 5 mm. Although Poock does not disclose the size of the surface support (120), it would have been obvious to provide the inverse piezoelectric devices having the claimed size since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable range of size involves only routine skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide the inverse piezoelectric devices is about 0.1 mm to 5 mm to the invention of Stagaman for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 5, although Stagaman does not disclose the inverse piezoelectric device and wherein an adjustment height is about −100 nm to +100 nm, Stagaman discloses that the height fine-tuning device (26, 28) controls the movement of the pins by fraction of a micron (col. 6, lines 61-67). Poock discloses the inverse piezoelectric device (Fig. 1a, 1b, para 0025, 0026). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the inverse piezoelectric device of Poock to the invention of Stagaman to adjust the height by -100 nm to +100 nm for high sensitivity afforded by inverse piezoelectric device since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable range of movement involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, although Stagaman does not disclose the inverse piezoelectric device and wherein an adjustment height accuracy of the inverse piezoelectric device is 1 nm, Stagaman discloses that the height fine-tuning device (26, 28) controls the movement of the pins by fraction of a micron (col. 6, lines 61-67). Poock discloses the inverse piezoelectric device (Fig. 1a, 1b, para 0025, 0026). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the inverse piezoelectric device of Poock to the invention of Stagaman to provide height accuracy of 1 nm since inverse piezoelectric device provides high sensitivity and accuracy.
Regarding claim 12, Stagaman discloses moving the wafer (col. 6, lines 6-10, alignment stage 32 for regulating stepping and field-to-field leveling). Although Stagaman discloses determining exact focal pattern of the calibration pattern including the deviations from the presumed flat focal plane (Fig. 2, col. 4, lines 10-37), Stagaman does not disclose detecting heights of the local area of the wafer. Poock discloses detecting heights of the local area of wafer before exposure (para 0025, 0026, presence of a non-allowable height level may be detected, measurement data gathered for height level for each of the surface portions, measurement system 160, Fig. 1g, para 0031). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to detect the heights of the local area of the wafer as taught by Poock to the invention of Stagaman in order to determine amount of adjustment of the local wafer height depending on the determined focal pattern.
Regarding claim 13, Stagaman discloses utilizing an exposure chuck height adjustment device (32) to adjust heights of the exposure chuck (col. 5, lines 47-65, field to field leveling and tilting motion).
Regarding claim 14, Stagaman discloses utilizing a wafer height fine-tuning device to adjust the heights of the local area of the wafer (col. 5, line 47 – col. 6, line 17, “the wafer modulator 28 actuates the adjustable pins 26 by extending selected pins and retracting other pins to temporarily bend (or modulate) that portion of the wafer surface”).
Regarding claim 15, Stagaman discloses exposing the local area of the wafer (Fig. 3, 4, col. 6, lines 18-30).
Regarding claim 16, Stagaman discloses that the adjustable pins 26 of the wafer height fine-tuning device is actuated by amounts of one micron or fractions thereof to adjust the heights of a local area of the wafer, but Stagaman does not disclose wherein the wafer height fine-tuning device comprises a plurality of inverse piezoelectric devices directly contacting the wafer. Poock discloses an exposure apparatus (Fig. 1h, para 0032) comprising: an exposure chuck (120, 110) and a wafer height fine-tuning device (120) to adjust height of a local area of the wafer (Fig. 1a-1c, para 0024-0026). Poock discloses wherein the wafer height fine-tuning device comprises a plurality of inverse piezoelectric devices (121, Fig. 1a, 1b) directly contacting the wafer (inverse piezoelectric devices apply electric field to a piezoelectrical material causing it to change shape, converting electrical energy into mechanical energy, which is disclosed in para 0027). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the inverse piezoelectric devices of Poock to the invention of Stagaman to control the adjustable pins in order to control the pins with high sensitivity and fast response time.
Claim(s) 7-10 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stagaman in view of Poock et al. as applied to claims 3 and 16 above, and further in view of Gui et al. (Gui) (2006/0098176).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Stagaman discloses determining exact focal pattern of the calibration pattern including the deviations from the presumed flat focal plane (Fig. 2, col. 4, lines 10-37), Stagaman does not disclose a plurality of scanning sensors to detect heights of the local area of the wafer to obtain a plurality of wafer height data. Poock discloses detecting heights of the local area of wafer before exposure (para 0025, 0026, presence of a non-allowable height level may be detected, measurement data gathered for height level for each of the surface portions). However, Poock does not disclose a plurality of scanning sensors. Gui discloses an exposure apparatus and method (Fig. 1-3) comprising a wafer (9) and wafer chuck (44) and a wafer height fine-tuning device (42, 6, 61) for adjusting heights of a local area of the wafer (para 0071). Gui also discloses a plurality of scanning sensors (8, Fig. 3, 4) to detect heights of the local area of the wafer to obtain a plurality of wafer height data (para 0072). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Stagaman by providing a plurality of scanning sensor to obtain a plurality of wafer height data in order to determine amount of adjustment of the local wafer height depending on the determined focal pattern and to increase efficiency and throughput
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Stagaman discloses a height analysis module (calibration database 22 and pattern alignment electronics 26, Fig. 3) to analyze the data regarding the exact focal pattern of the calibration pattern including the deviations from the presumed flat focal plane (Fig. 2, col. 4, lines 10-37) to obtain an analysis result (determining regulating of the wafer height fine-tuning device, 28, col. 6, lines 5-15). However, Stagaman does not disclose that the height analysis module is connected to the scanning sensors and that it analyzes the wafer height data. Poock discloses in Fig. 1g, a height analysis module (140) connected to the scanning sensor (160) and analyzes the wafer height data to obtain height correction data (para 0031). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to connect the height analysis module to the scanning sensor for obtaining height data of Poock in order to determine how much to adjust height of each of the local wafer area.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Stagaman discloses a chuck height control module (control electronics 34, Fig. 3) connected to the height analysis module (22, 36) to adjust heights of the exposure chuck according to the analysis result of the height analysis module so as to further adjust the heights of the wafer (controlling of the stage 32, col. 6, lines 5-9).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Stagaman discloses a fine-tuning control module (control electronics 34, Fig. 3) connected to the height analysis module (22, 36) to respectively adjust heights of the inverse piezoelectric devices according to the analysis result of the height analysis module so as to respectively adjust the heights of the local area of the wafer (regulating of the wafer height fine-tuning device, 28, col. 6, lines 9-17). Although Stagaman does not disclose a separate fine-tuning control module connected to the chuck height control module, Stagaman discloses that control electronics 34 functions to control both the chuck height adjustment device and height-fine tuning device (col. 6, lines 5-17). Since the control electronics 34 performs the functions of both a fine-tuning control module and a chuck height control module, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide them as two separate modules that are connected since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Masuyuki et al. (6,137,562) discloses a wafer height adjuster (70, Fig. 1(B), abstract) located between the exposure chuck (26) and the wafer (WB).
Van Den Brink et al. (7,675,606) discloses a wafer holder (Fig. 2a) for holding a wafer (W), the holder comprising a plurality of burls (7) using vacuum to hold the wafer in position (abstract).
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 November 14, 2025