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 .
Claim Objections
In claim 3, consider --wherein the at least one valve--.
In claim 5 and 17, the examiner suggests, as alterative language: --wherein the plurality of third ports are configured to be in fluid communication with a region of pressure that is between 400 and 800 mbar less than ambient pressure-- to avoid numerous recitations of greater and less that may be confusing at first.
In claim 6, consider --in which [[the]] a radial distance to [[the]] a centre of the substrate support--.
In claim 7, consider --wherein [[the]] a radial distance between each of the plurality of second ports and [[the]] a centre of the substrate support is more than 40 mm […] the centre of the substrate support is more than 13% of [[the]] a diameter of the substrate--.
In claim 8, consider -- when the substrate is supported on the substrate support, [[the]] a distance between each of the plurality of third ports […] when the substrate is supported on the substrate support, the (keep “the” if using “peripheral edge”, change to --a-- otherwise) distance between each of the plurality of third ports and a circumferential edge of the substrate is less than 10% of [[the]] a diameter of the substrate--. While this does not arise to an indefiniteness issue, the examiner is unsure of whether the recitation of “a circumferential edge of the substrate” was intended to be -- the peripheral edge-- instead in view of the earlier change (assuming a round substrate [which is implied by having a diameter; and is typical in this art] the change in language is of essentially insignificant)
In claim 9, consider -- [[the]] a diameter of the first port is greater than 0.6 mm,--
In claim 10, consider -- wherein there are [[a]] the plurality of first ports in the central region of the substrate support--
In claim 12, consider -- wherein [[the]] a diameter of the first port is less than the sum of [[the]] a distance between each of the plurality of burls and [[the]] a radius of each burl--.
In claim 14, there is an extra space before the comma in the first instance of “supplying”
In claim 15, consider -- performed for more than 90% of [[the]] a time that the substrate is clamped to the substrate support--.
In claim 18, consider -- wherein the central region of the substrate support is a region in which [[the]] a radial distance to [[the]] a centre of the substrate support is less than 25 mm.
In claim 19, consider -- wherein [[the]] a radial distance between each of the plurality of second ports and [[the]] a centre of the substrate support is more than 40 mm and less than 100 mm […] the centre of the substrate support is more than 13% of [[the]] a diameter of the substrate and less than 33% of the diameter of the substrate--.
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) 1-4, 6-9, 11-13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeunink (US 20190043749 A1) in view of DE-918 (DE 202005014918 U1)
With respect to claim 1, Jeunink discloses A substrate holding system (abstract, a support table for holding a substrate, [0007]) comprising: a substrate support configured to support a substrate (substrate support WT, fig. 13; [0108]), the substrate support comprising a first port in a central region thereof (at least one first port 69 in a central region 81 to r1, [0110], fig .13) and a plurality of second ports radially outwards of the first port (second ports 69, in an outward region at r2, [0110] ); a gas source configured to supply an inert gas to a region between the substrate and the substrate support via the first port, and via the plurality of second ports ([0108], references fig. 9, which provides for a gas source 97 connected to openings 69, and which can puff air as in [0143]; [0076] provides for air as an example) and a plurality of conduits configured to provide fluid communication between the gas source and the first port and plurality of second ports (98, fig. 9; [0134,0138], which is provided for each region), wherein: the substrate holding system is configured such that the inert gas can be supplied to the region between the substrate and the substrate support through the first port or the plurality of second ports (as mentioned above, the gas supply can provide air to reach opening 69, and fig. 13 depicts burl plate 21 in [0112], which is shown in fig. 4 with burls 64, [0123] that provide for a space between substrate W and a base 61) and the substrate holding system is configured to extract gas from the region between the substrate and the substrate support through the plurality of second ports (the ports can provide extraction as in [0111]).
Although the examiner submits that the gas supply in Jeunink can structurally provide inert gas[because atmospheric air is mostly nitrogen]), Jeunink provides that this arrangement is used as part of a lithography system ([0002]).
DE-918, in the same field of endeavor, related to substrate holding devices, teaches that nitrogen (or noble gases, both of which are inert) can be used in place of air ([0040]). MPEP 2143 provides that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted nitrogen, in place of air, as the gas used within the substrate holder. The substitution would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art given the explicit suggestion in DE-918.
With respect to claim 2, Jeunink, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the first port and the plurality of second ports are in fluid communication with the gas supply via at least one valve in the substrate holding system wherein the at least one valve is configured such that the inert gas can be supplied to the region between the substrate and the substrate support through the first port or the plurality of second ports. Jeunink however, further teaches that the flow in each region (which has either the first port or the plurality of second ports) can be controlled in sequence ([0111]), and teaches of providing a valve for independent control of pressure (99, fig. 9; [0140]). Jeunink teaches that valves make sequencing more robust ([0125]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Jeunink (the embodiment in fig. 13 that was previously cited with support from fig. 9), with a valve, such the first port and the plurality of second ports are in fluid communication with the gas supply via at least one valve in the substrate holding system, to permit more robust sequencing with independent control of pressure. The arrangement would have resulted in wherein the at least one valve is configured such that the inert gas can be supplied to the region between the substrate and the substrate support through the first port or the plurality of second ports, as the at least one valve could be opened to allow the previously described puff of gas/air through the opening.
With respect to claim 3, Jeunink, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 2 above, and further teaches wherein the valve is further configured to exhaust the inert gas to an external environment or to other parts of the substrate holding system (Jeunink, if there is no substrate on top, or being held, the valve can be structurally opened and exhaust inert gas [the puff of air] to the outside environment).
With respect to claim 4, Jeunink, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the substrate support further comprises a plurality of third ports radially outwards of the plurality of second ports, wherein the plurality of third ports are configured to extract fluid from the region between the substrate and the substrate support (third ports 69 at r3, fig. 13; [0110], which can extract fluid/air in [0111]).
With respect to claim 6, Jeunink, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the central region of the substrate support is a region in which the radial distance to the centre of the substrate support is less than 25 mm (Jeunink, the central region 81, fig. 13 incudes the center of the substrate support which means that the radial distance from at least one point on the central region to the center is 0).
Alternatively, MPEP 2144.04 provides that changes in size/proportion would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, providing that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, thus it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art”. Jeunink provides that a variation of the differing radius placements of each of the sets of ports, of which each is within its own region ([0112-0115]), and while Jeunink does not explicitly provide for a specific number for each region, demonstrates that a variation in the relative dimensions of the prior art device, relative to the recitation in the claim would not perform differently. In addition, it is not apparent how the radial distance of the central region would affect the performance of the device (see instant spec at [0094]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Jeunink, such that the central region of the substrate support is a region in which the radial distance to the centre of the substrate support is less than 25 mm as a difference in relative dimensions. The modification would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art given the suggestion that the distance can be varied in Jeunink.
With respect to claim 7, Jeunink, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the radial distance between each of the plurality of second ports and the centre of the substrate support is more than 40 mm and less than 100 mm, and/or wherein the radial distance between each of the plurality of second ports and the centre of the substrate support is more than 13% of the diameter of the substrate and less than 33% of the diameter of the substrate. However, the examiner notes with respect to the limitation in the alterative of wherein the radial distance between each of the plurality of second ports and the centre of the substrate support is more than 13% of the diameter of the substrate and less than 33% of the diameter of the substrate, that the substrate is not part of the claimed invention, as claim 1 provides “a substrate support configured to support a substrate”, and the substrate support can support a substrate of different sizes (including one larger or smaller than the substrate support itself if one was simply placed on top), including one where the radial distance between each of the plurality of second ports and the centre of the substrate support is more than 13% of the diameter of the substrate and less than 33% of the diameter of the substrate, and therefore the claim is met.
Alternatively, MPEP 2144.04 provides that changes in size/proportion would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, providing that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, thus it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art”. Jeunink provides that a variation of the differing radius placements of each of the sets of ports, of which each is within its own region ([0112-0115]), and while Jeunink does not explicitly provide for a specific number for each region, demonstrates that a variation in the relative dimensions of the prior art device, relative to the recitation in the claim would not perform differently. In addition, it is not apparent how the radial distance between each of the plurality of second ports and the centre of the substrate support would affect the performance of the device (see instant spec at [0075]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Jeunink, such that the radial distance between each of the plurality of second ports and the centre of the substrate support is more than 40 mm and less than 100 mm, and/or wherein the radial distance between each of the plurality of second ports and the centre of the substrate support is more than 13% of the diameter of the substrate and less than 33% of the diameter of the substrate. The modification would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art given the suggestion that the distance can be varied in Jeunink.
With respect to claim 8, Jeunink, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 4 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein, when the substrate is supported on the substrate support, the distance between each of the plurality of third ports and a peripheral edge of the substrate is less than 25 mm, and greater than 1.5 mm or wherein, when the substrate is supported on the substrate support, the distance between each of the plurality of third ports and a circumferential edge of the substrate is less than 10% of the diameter of the substrate and greater than 0.5% of the diameter of the substrate. However, the examiner notes with respect to the limitation when the substrate is supported on the substrate support, that the substrate is not part of the claimed invention, as claim 1 provides “a substrate support configured to support a substrate”, and the substrate support can support a substrate of different sizes (including one larger or smaller than the substrate support itself if one was simply placed on top), and the use of “when” is interpreted to be a functional effect when a substrate (which does not have to be a specific defined size) is placed on top. Therefore, the examiner finds that the limitation of when the substrate is supported on the substrate support, the distance between each of the plurality of third ports and a peripheral edge of the substrate is less than 25 mm, and greater than 1.5 mm or wherein, when the substrate is supported on the substrate support, the distance between each of the plurality of third ports and a circumferential edge of the substrate is less than 10% of the diameter of the substrate and greater than 0.5% of the diameter of the substrate can be met by Jeunink because a substrate of a selected size can be placed on top of the substrate support to meet the claim limitations.
Alternatively, MPEP 2144.04 provides that changes in size/proportion would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, providing that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, thus it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art”. Jeunink provides that a variation of the differing radius placements of each of the sets of ports, of which each is within its own region ([0112-0115]), and while Jeunink does not explicitly provide for a specific number for each region, demonstrates that a variation in the relative dimensions of the prior art device, relative to the recitation in the claim would not perform differently. It is not apparent from the disclosure how the particular distance between each of the plurality of third ports and a peripheral/circumferential edge of the substrate would affect the performance of the device (see instant spec at [0080-0081]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Jeunink, such that when the substrate is supported on the substrate support, the distance between each of the plurality of third ports and a peripheral edge of the substrate is less than 25 mm and greater than 1.5 mm, or wherein, when the substrate is supported on the substrate support, the distance between each of the plurality of third ports and a circumferential edge of the substrate is less than 10% of the diameter of the substrate and greater than 0.5% of the diameter of the substrate. The modification would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art given the suggestion that the distance can be varied in Jeunink.
With respect to claim 9, Jeunink, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches herein there is only one first port in the central region of the substrate support, and the diameter of the first port is greater than 0.6 mm or wherein there are a plurality of first ports in the central region of the substrate support (Jeunink, there are a plurality of ports 69 in first region 81, fig. 13; [0112]).
With respect to claim 11, Jeunink, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the substrate support further comprises a plurality of burls protruding from an upper surface of the substrate support (Jeunink, fig. 13 depicts burl plate 21 in [0112], which is shown in fig. 4 with burls 64, protruding therefrom [0123]).
With respect to claim 12, Jeunink, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 11 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the diameter of the first port is less than the sum of the distance between each of the plurality of burls and the radius of each burl (the burls are implicitly round by definition with a radius). However, the examiner notes that the first port (or one of the plurality of first ports in Jeunink) has to fit in between the plurality of burls on the surface, and that given that Jeunink has multiple burls (and thus multiple distances between the burls [and not only the closest burl, a reasonable interpretation would be to sum the distances between each and every burl relative to each other, but in any case, it can also between the furthest two burls on the plate], and multiple radiuses of the burls themselves all added up together to result in the sum of the distance between each of the plurality of burls and the radius of each burl), Jeunink therefore appears to implicitly disclose this limitation. See fig. 4 of Jeunink, for an example where there is region 81 two distant burls 62 on opposite ends [left and right] of the plate and because the region 81 is smaller in the center, and the first port would be in 81, it would appear that the port is smaller, even before adding the other distances and the radiuses of the all the other burls together.
Alternatively, MPEP 2144.04 provides that changes in size/proportion would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, providing that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, thus it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art”. There is no evidence on the record that the dimensions of the diameter of the first port relative to the sum of the distance between each of the plurality of burls and the radius of each burl affects the performance of the prior art device (while instant spec at [0115] provides that “supply openings 321 do not interfere with the plurality of burls 341, the diameter of the supply openings 321 may be less than the sum of the burl pitch and the burl radius” it does not say what impact there would be if that was not the case). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Jeunink, such that the diameter of the first port is less than the sum of the distance between each of the plurality of burls and the radius of each burl. The modification would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art as a mere variation in the relative dimensions of the device with the placement and size of the burls.
With respect to claim 13, Jeunink, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches A lithographic apparatus including the substrate holding system according to claim 1 (the limitations of claim 1 are addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above, furthermore, this is applied as part of a lithographic system in Jeunink, [0002]).
With respect to claim 20, Jeunink, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the inert gas consists essentially of nitrogen (DE-918 teaches of nitrogen in place of air, [0040]) and/or wherein the substrate support is formed of SiSiC, and/or wherein the substrate support is coated with diamond or with diamond-like carbon.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeunink (US 20190043749 A1) in view of DE-918 (DE 202005014918 U1) and further in view of Lee (US 20180323094 A1)
With respect to claim 5, Jeunink, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 4 above, however does not explicitly teach that the plurality of third ports are configured to be in fluid communication with a region of pressure that is greater than 400 mbar less than ambient pressure and less than 800 mbar less than ambient pressure. As addressed in the rejection of claim 4 above, the third ports extract air and are this in vacuum (less than atmospheric pressure).
Lee, in the same field of endeavor, related to substrate chucks, teaches that when holding the substrate, excessive pressure should be avoided to prevent overexerting the substrate under too much pressure and to save power, but there is a point where the substrate is fixed ([0060]).
MPEP 2144.05 provides that discovering workable ranges would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, if the range has been shown to be a result effective variable, and if it has not been demonstrated that the range is critical. The applicant has not demonstrated that the claimed vacuum pressure between 400 and 800 mbar is a result effective variable across the entire range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Jeunink, such that the plurality of third ports are configured to be in fluid communication with a region of pressure that is greater than 400 mbar less than ambient pressure and less than 800 mbar less than ambient pressure, by varying the vacuum setpoint pressure, to select a pressure that prevent overexerting the substrate under too much pressure and to save power, but ensuring that the substrate is fixed, as Lee demonstrated the effect of varying the pressure. The modification would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art given the suggestion that the pressure should not be too high to save power and prevent overexerting the substrate but still serve to ensure that the substrate is sufficiently held.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeunink (US 20190043749 A1) in view of DE-918 (DE 202005014918 U1) and further in view of Hyoubu (WO 2007114331 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Jeunink teaches the limitations of claim 9 above, and further teaches wherein there are a plurality of first ports in the central region of the substrate support (the limitation in the alterative addressed in rejection of claim 9) however does not explicitly teach the diameter of each of the plurality of first ports is greater than 0.4 mm.
Hyoubu, in the same field of endeavor, related to substrate holding, teaches that for holes that provide vacuum force (as addressed in claim 1, the first ports can extract air, as with all the other ports), the hole should be more than 0.5 mm to reduce blocking by foreign matter and the time needed to pull the vacuum (“Preferably, the size of the adsorption holes 3 is 0.5 mm or greater in diameter. If the size of the suction holes is less than 0.5 mm, it takes time to pull the vacuum due to the number of suction holes, and the wafer 11 may not be sufficiently suctioned. In addition, adsorption holes having a size of less than 0.5 mm may be blocked by foreign matter” [0030], see holes 3 in fig. 1b, subfigures (c) and (d)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Jeunink, such that the diameter of each of the plurality of first ports is greater than 0.4 mm, using the teachings of Hyoubu to reduce blocking by foreign matter and the time needed to pull the vacuum.
Claim(s) 14, 15, 16, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeunink (US 20190043749 A1) in view of DE-918 (DE 202005014918 U1) and Noji (US 20220115252 A1).
With respect to claim 14, Jeunink discloses a method of supporting a substrate on a substrate support ([0080] teaches a method of loading a substrate on support table WT, which is shown in fig. 13; the embodiment of fig. 13 supports any sequence in [0111]) , the substrate support comprising a first port in a central region of the substrate support (at least one first port 69 in a central region 81 to r1, [0110], fig .13) and a plurality of second ports radially outwards of the first port (second ports 69, in an outward region at r2, fig. 13, [0110]; for claim interpretation purposes there is another set of ports 69, at region r3, fig. 13, [0110], that can either be interpreted to be part of the set of second ports, or as a set of third ports; those set of ports are in regions 82, and 83, fig .13 ); the method comprising: supplying, in a substrate loading a gas to a region between the substrate and the substrate support through the plurality of second ports (a puff of gas [air] is supplied though second ports during a phase of loading to at least region 82 of the second ports as in [0085]; [0076] provides for air; fig. 13 depicts burl plate 21 in [0112], which is shown in fig. 4 with burls 62, [0123] that provide for a space between substrate W and a base 61 where the gas is); however does not explicitly disclose inert gas or supplying, in a subsequent substrate clamping, the inert gas is to the region between the substrate and the substrate support through the first port.
DE-918, in the same field of endeavor, related to substrate holding devices, teaches that nitrogen (or noble gases, both of which are inert) can be used in place of air ([0040]). MPEP 2143 provides that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted nitrogen, in place of air, as the gas used within the substrate holder. The substitution would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art given the explicit suggestion in DE-918.
Jeunink suggests that during handling of the substrate, correction of warpage is desired ([0140-0142, 0157]). Noji, in the same field of endeavor, related to substrate handling, teaches of during substrate clamping, supplying the gas is to the region between the substrate and the substrate support through the first port [at an analogous central region] while providing extraction at a peripheral region (see supply of gas at 16 at center while providing suction at 15, fig. 1; while arranging the holes to correct warpage [0043]). Noji teaches that this flattens the wafer and corrects the actual condition ([0043]) while also facilitating external inspection of the wafer [0070]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jeunink to include supplying, in a subsequent substrate clamping, the inert gas is to the region between the substrate and the substrate support through the first port (at the central region), for the purpose of correcting warpage, as well as also enabling accurate inspection of the wafer. The inert gas would be used in place of air as taught by DE-918.
With respect to claim 15, Jeunink, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 14 above, and further teaches wherein in the substrate loading step the inert gas is only supplied to the plurality of second ports (Jeunink, there is a period of time where the inert gas is only supplied as in [0085] to regions 82 and 83, and not any other region; those set of ports at 82 and 83, fig. 13, meet the limitations of claims 14 and 15 since no third ports are required, see explanation of the interpretation of second ports in claim 14), and/or wherein in the substrate clamping step, the inert gas is only supplied to the first port, and/or wherein the supplying, in the substrate clamping, of the inert gas is performed for more than 90% of the time that the substrate is clamped to the substrate support.
With respect to claim 16, Jeunink, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 14 above, and further teaches further comprising extracting fluid from the region between the substrate and the substrate support using a plurality of third ports radially outwards of the plurality of second ports (Noji, as explained in the rejection of claim 14 above, provides extracting fluid from peripheral ports, which is provided for as ports 69, at region r3/83, fig. 13, [0110], this claim is not dependent on claim 15 so the “only” requirement and the interpretation that the second ports include both 82 and 83 does not apply (and a mapping of the second ports to those in only region 82 meets claim 14), furthermore, [0110-0111] provides that the ports in Jeunink can extract fluid and there is no specific step or time period in which this claimed extraction must occur).
With respect to claim 18, Jeunink, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 14 above, and further teaches wherein the central region of the substrate support is a region in which the radial distance to the centre of the substrate support is less than 25 mm (Jeunink, the central region 81, fig .13 incudes the center of the substrate support which means that the radial distance from at least one point on the central region to the center is 0).
Alternatively, MPEP 2144.04 provides that changes in size/proportion would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, providing that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, thus it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art”. Jeunink provides that a variation of the differing radius placements of each of the sets of ports, of which each is within its own region ([0112-0115]), and while Jeunink does not explicitly provide for a specific number for each region, demonstrates that a variation in the relative dimensions of the prior art device, relative to the recitation in the claim would not perform differently. In addition, it is not apparent how the radial distance of the central region would affect the performance of the device (see instant spec at [0094]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Jeunink, such that the central region of the substrate support is a region in which the radial distance to the centre of the substrate support is less than 25 mm as a difference in relative dimensions. The modification would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art given the suggestion that the distance can be varied in Jeunink.
With respect to claim 19, Jeunink, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 14 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the radial distance between each of the plurality of second ports and the centre of the substrate support is more than 40 mm and less than 100 mm, and/or wherein the radial distance between each of the plurality of second ports and the centre of the substrate support is more than 13% of the diameter of the substrate and less than 33% of the diameter of the substrate.
MPEP 2144.04 provides that changes in size/proportion would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, providing that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, thus it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art”. Jeunink provides that a variation of the differing radius placements of each of the sets of ports, of which each is within its own region ([0112-0115]), and while Jeunink does not explicitly provide for a specific number for each region, demonstrates that a variation in the relative dimensions of the prior art device, relative to the recitation in the claim would not perform differently. In addition, it is not apparent how the radial distance between each of the plurality of second ports and the centre of the substrate support would affect the performance of the device (see instant spec at [0075]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Jeunink, such that the radial distance between each of the plurality of second ports and the centre of the substrate support is more than 40 mm and less than 100 mm, and/or wherein the radial distance between each of the plurality of second ports and the centre of the substrate support is more than 13% of the diameter of the substrate and less than 33% of the diameter of the substrate. The modification would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art given the suggestion that the distance can be varied in Jeunink.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeunink (US 20190043749 A1) in view of DE-918 (DE 202005014918 U1) and Noji (US 20220115252 A1) and further in view of Lee (US 20180323094 A1)
With respect to claim 17, Jeunink, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 16 above, however does not explicitly teach that the plurality of third ports are configured to be in fluid communication with a region of pressure that is greater than 400 mbar less than ambient pressure and less than 800 mbar less than ambient pressure. As addressed in the rejection of claim 16 above, the third ports extract air and are this in vacuum (less than atmospheric pressure).
Lee, in the same field of endeavor, related to substrate chucks, teaches that when holding the substrate, excessive pressure should be avoided to prevent overexerting the substrate under too much pressure and to save power, but there is a point where the substrate is fixed ([0060]).
MPEP 2144.05 provides that discovering workable ranges would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, if the range has been shown to be a result effective variable, and if it has not been demonstrated that the range is critical. The applicant has not demonstrated that the claimed vacuum pressure between 400 and 800 mbar is a result effective variable across the entire range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Jeunink, such that the plurality of third ports are configured to be in fluid communication with a region of pressure that is greater than 400 mbar less than ambient pressure and less than 800 mbar less than ambient pressure, by varying the vacuum setpoint pressure, to select a pressure that prevent overexerting the substrate under too much pressure and to save power, but ensuring that the substrate is fixed, as Lee demonstrated the effect of varying the pressure. The modification would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art given the suggestion that the pressure should not be too high to save power and prevent overexerting the substrate but still serve to ensure that the substrate is sufficiently held.
Conclusion
It appears that the sequence in instant figs. 9-11, if sufficiently defined, may be able to overcome the prior art. If the applicant wishes to include it in an apparatus or system claim, it may be possible to use a controller to do so.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Marcus (WO 2020259930 A1) teaches that in a lithography machine inert gas should be used to avoid fires.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights