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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 06/20/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 1 paragraphs [0001] and [0002], blank spaces must be filled.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
Figures 1-4B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
Internal transfer unit of claim 11,
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 line 1, “a substrate” should be –the substrate--. Similar corrections is required in claims 3-10 and 12-16.
Claim 11 line 22, “the main processing chamber” should be –the main substrate processing chamber--. Corrections in several instances in claim 11 and claims 13 and 15 is required.
Claim 13 line 3, “the processing chamber” should be -- the main processing chamber--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8, 15 and 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.
The term “a high vacuum pressure or lower” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a high vacuum pressure or lower ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Specification paragraph [0012] mentions “a high vacuum pressure or lower” without providing any further clarification. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted to be any vacuum pressure.
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 15.
Regarding claim 8, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 15.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10-12, 15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weber (CN 113614282 A).
Regarding claim 11, Weber teaches a system for processing a substrate (abstract, a carrier for transporting substrate in a processing system), the system comprising:
a main substrate processing chamber (page 9, the processing chamber);
a load lock chamber (e.g. chamber comprising loading station 372 and loading locking chamber 380, fig.3);
an internal transport unit (i.e. one or more transfer chambers 382, fig.3) configured to transfer the substrate between the load lock chamber and the main substrate processing chamber (page 9, In order to transfer the substrate into the high vacuum chamber);
at least one processor (page 3, a computer of appropriate software programming) and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor (page 3, a computer of appropriate software programming), the at least one memory including a plurality of computer-readable instructions that (page 3, a computer of appropriate software programming), when executed by the at least one processor (page 3, a computer of appropriate software programming), cause the system to:
transfer the substrate into the load lock chamber and position the substrate on an upper surface of a substrate holder in the load lock chamber (page 3, loading the substrate on the substrate support surface of the carrier), wherein the substrate holder comprises one or more vacuum channels disposed at the upper surface (page 3, providing a vacuum to the carrier substrate supporting surface, for attracting the substrate) and one or more electrodes disposed within the substrate holder proximate to the upper surface (page 3, providing an electrostatic force with the chuck assembly to the substrate);
while the substrate holder is within the load lock chamber, clamp and flatten the substrate to the substrate holder by applying a vacuum to the one or more vacuum channels (page 6, a vacuum mode to the chuck assembly to avoid and/or prevent undesirable separation of the substrate is beneficial);
while the substrate is clamped to the substrate holder via the one or more vacuum channels, apply a voltage to the one or more electrodes to further clamp the substrate to the substrate holder with an electrostatic force (page 3, providing an electrostatic force with the chuck assembly to the substrate);
pump out the load lock chamber to a vacuum pressure while continuing to clamp the substrate to the substrate holder with electrostatic force (page 9, the loading locking chamber is set in the range of less than 10-1 millibar under the atmospheric pressure);
transfer the substrate and substrate holder, under vacuum conditions, from the load lock chamber into the main processing chamber with the internal transfer unit (page 9, the substrate can be inserted into the high vacuum chamber to transport the substrate to the processing chamber); and
while the substrate is clamped to the substrate holder by electrostatic force, process the substrate in the main processing chamber at a vacuum pressure (page 9, a processing system (i.e., a vacuum processing chamber) may include one or more material deposition source).
Regarding claim 12, Weber teaches the system for processing a substrate according to claim 11 wherein clamping and flattening the substrate to the substrate holder by applying a vacuum to the one or more vacuum channels occurs while the load lock chamber is at atmospheric pressure (page 9, chamber providing atmospheric pressure. The processing system comprises a vacuum generating device).
Regarding claim 15, Weber teaches the system for processing a substrate according to claim 11 wherein the vacuum pressure that the sample is processed at in the main processing chamber is a high vacuum pressure or lower (page 9, substrate can be inserted into the high vacuum chamber to transport the substrate to the processing chamber).
Regarding claim 17, Weber substantially teaches the claim limitations as stated above for claim 11. Weber further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable memory that stores instructions for processing a substrate (page 3, a computer of appropriate software programming).
Regarding claim 18, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 12.
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 15.
Regarding claim 1, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 11.
Regarding claim 2, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 11.
Regarding claim 3, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 12.
Regarding claim 8, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 15.
Regarding claim 10, Weber teaches the method of processing a substrate according to claim 1 wherein the substrate is a semiconductor wafer (page 2, a substrate for a display can be coated by a PVD process, including a substrate for a high density display).
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.
Claims 4-6, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (CN 113614282 A), and further in view of Seya (US 20080217534 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Weber teaches the system for processing a substrate according to claim 11.
Weber does not teach, wherein the main processing chamber comprises a scanning electron microscope and processing the substrate in the processing chamber comprises imaging the substrate with the scanning electron microscope.
Seya teaches in a similar field of endeavor of electrostatic chucks, a main processing chamber (abstract, an electrostatic chuck replacement chamber) comprises a scanning electron microscope (abstract, provide a scanning electron microscope) and processing the substrate in the main processing chamber comprises imaging the substrate with the scanning electron microscope (abstract, carry out measurements and observations using an electron beam).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the main processing chamber comprises a scanning electron microscope and processing the substrate in the processing chamber comprises imaging the substrate with the scanning electron microscope in Weber, as taught by Seya, as it provides the advantage of lower contamination and restoring the processing chamber to its original condition in less time.
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 13.
Regarding claim 4, Weber teaches the method of processing a substrate according to claim 3.
Weber does not teach, further comprising, after processing the substrate in the second chamber under vacuum conditions, transferring the substrate holder with the substrate positioned thereon, back to the load lock chamber.
Seya teaches in a similar field of endeavor of electrostatic chucks, after processing the substrate in the second chamber under vacuum conditions, transferring the substrate holder with the substrate positioned thereon, back to the load lock chamber ([0039], The wafer is unloaded from the sample chamber 3 (at step S5001)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the after processing the substrate in the second chamber under vacuum conditions, transferring the substrate holder with the substrate positioned thereon, back to the load lock chamber in Weber, as taught by Seya, as it provides the advantage of lower contamination and restoring the processing chamber to its original condition in less time.
Regarding claim 5, Weber and Ahn teach the method of processing a substrate according to claim 4 further comprising, after transferring the substrate holder with the substrate positioned thereon back to the load lock chamber, venting the load lock chamber to atmosphere and transferring the substrate out of the load lock chamber ([0028], back to the wafer loading chamber 4 by the wafer changing mechanism and transferred through atmospheric leakage to the atmosphere-side wafer transfer system).
Regarding claim 6, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 13.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (CN 113614282 A), and further in view of Ahn (KR 20210077089 A).
Regarding claim 14, Weber teaches the system for processing a substrate according to claim 11.
Weber does not teach, wherein the substrate has a warpage of at least 1.0 millimeters between a lowest point and a highest point on the substrate.
Ahn teaches in a similar field of endeavor of loadlock apparatus for aligning a substrate, a substrate has a warpage of at least 1.0 millimeters between a lowest point and a highest point on the substrate (page 7, the height of the deformed portion of the substrate W may be formed to a length of less than 5 mm).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the substrate has a warpage of at least 1.0 millimeters between a lowest point and a highest point on the substrate in Weber, as taught by Ahn, as it provides the advantage of optimal design for commonly found warpage of substrate.
Regarding claim 7, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 14.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (CN 113614282 A), and further in view of Ito (US 6632512 B1).
Regarding claim 16, Weber teaches the system for processing a substrate according to claim 11.
Weber does not teach, wherein the one or more electrodes comprise at least two electrodes arranged in an interleaved pattern with each other.
Ito teaches in a similar field of electrostatic chucks for manufacturing and inspecting semiconductors, one or more electrodes comprise at least two electrodes arranged in an interleaved pattern with each other (e.g. pattern of electrodes 36, fig.6).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the one or more electrodes comprise at least two electrodes arranged in an interleaved pattern with each other in Weber, as taught by Ito, as it provides the advantage of precise control on applying electrostatic force on a substrate.
Regarding claim 9, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SREEYA SREEVATSA whose telephone number is (571)272-8304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Thienvu V Tran can be reached at (571) 270-1276. 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.
/SREEYA SREEVATSA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 02/11/2026