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 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, 2, 6, 12, 13, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi [US 2011/0228439].
For claims 1 and 13, Kobayashi teaches a substrate holding/processing apparatus (see Fig. 1) comprising:
a holder (23) configured to hold a substrate (W); and
a gas supplier (28-31) configured to supply a gas between the substrate and the holder (see [0043]); and
a controller (controller not shown, see [0047]) configured to control the gas supplier (gas supply controlled, see [0056]),
wherein, in a case of separating the substrate from the holder, the controller is configured to control the supply amount of the gas to be reduced based on information concerning an adhesive force between the substrate and the holder, which decreases over time (gas supply reduced with electrostatic attraction force, see Figs. 5A-5B and [0065]-[0073]).
For claim 17, Kobayashi teaches a separating method comprising:
acquiring information concerning an adhesive force between the substrate and the holder (demounting based on the electrostatic force applied, see [0056]);
supplying a gas between the substrate and the holder based on the information concerning the adhesive force acquired in the acquiring (supplied gas is controlled to satisfy equation, see [0065]-[0073]); and
separating the substrate from the holder after supply of the gas is started in the supplying (wafer is removed from chuck 23, see [0072]),
wherein the adhesive force is a force that decreases over time (see Figs. 5A-5B), and
wherein in the supplying, a supply amount of the gas is reduced based on information concerning the adhesive force (see Figs. 5A-5B).
For claim 2, Kobayashi teaches the controller is configured to further control the gas supplier based on at least one of a characteristic of the substrate and a characteristic of the holder (charge of the chuck, see [0056] and Figs. 5A-5B).
For claims 6 and 14, Kobayashi teaches a controller configured to control supply of the gas by the gas supplier, wherein the controller is configured to control at least one of a supply amount of the gas and a supply time of the gas (adjusted based on time period s1, see Fig. 5A).
For claim 12, Kobayashi teaches the controller is configured to set contents of control of supply of the gas for each lot (controller controls the mode, mode controlled for a lot, see [0047] and [0082]-[0089]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5, 8, 9, 11, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Jeunink et al. [US 2019/0043749].
For claim 19, Kobayashi teaches an article manufacturing/separating method comprising:
acquiring information concerning an adhesive force between the substrate and the holder (demounting based on the electrostatic force applied, see [0056]);
supplying a gas between the substrate and the holder based on the information concerning the adhesive force acquired in the acquiring (supplied gas is controlled to satisfy equation, see [0065]-[0073]); and
separating the substrate from the holder after supply of the gas is started in the supplying (wafer is removed from chuck 23, see [0072]),
wherein the adhesive force is a force that decreases over time (see Figs. 5A-5B), and
wherein in the supplying, a supply amount of the gas is reduced based on information concerning the adhesive force (see Figs. 5A-5B).
Kobayashi fails to explicitly teach forming a pattern on a substrate held by a holder; supplying a gas between the holder and the substrate with the pattern formed thereon in the forming, processing the substrate separated in the separating; and manufacturing an article using the substrate processed in the processing.
Jeunink teaches forming a pattern on a substrate held by a holder (patterning the substrate, see [0034]); supplying a gas between the holder and the substrate with the pattern formed thereon in the forming (gas supplied during unloading, see [0067]), processing the substrate separated in the separating (developing the exposed resist, see [0257]); and manufacturing an article using the substrate processed in the processing (manufacturing an IC, see [0257]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lithographic apparatus for forming a patterned substrate as taught by Jeunink with the separation control method as taught by Kobayashi to further reduce the pressure shock that would deform or break a wafer used in a lithographic apparatus.
For claim 5, Kobayashi teaches the gas supplier includes a pipe configured to allow the gas to flow therethrough (see Fig. 1), but fails to teach the pipe is also used to decompress a space between the substrate and the holder to hold the substrate by the holder.
Jeunink teaches the pipe is also used to decompress a space between the substrate and the holder to hold the substrate by the holder (the gas flow system 97 is configured to supply gas to the gap and extract gas from the gap through the gas flow openings 69, see [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the vacuum function combined with the supply function as taught by Jeunink in the holder as taught by Kobayashi in order to provide a further clamping tool to secure the substrate during periods where the electrostatic chuck may fail, or to evacuate the helium when necessary.
For claims 8 and 9, Kobayashi teaches a plurality of openings are formed in a surface of the holder facing the substrate (see [0043]).
Kobayashi fails to teach the controller is configured to separately control a supply amount of a gas from a first opening among the plurality of openings and a supply amount of a gas from a second opening among the plurality of openings, wherein the plurality of openings include an opening used for gas supply and an opening not used for gas supply.
Jeunink teaches the controller is configured to separately control a supply amount of a gas from a first opening among the plurality of openings and a supply amount of a gas from a second opening among the plurality of openings (gas can be supplied to or extracted from the substantially independently, see [0094], [0099], [0102], and [0108]), wherein the plurality of openings include an opening used for gas supply (opening used for gas 69, see Fig. 7) and an opening not used for gas supply (opening 88 used for fluid extraction, see [0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide independent control of the opening as taught by Jeunink in the control of the openings as taught by Kobayashi to facilitate more accurate control of the separation pressure during demounting and providing an opening for varied function.
For claim 11, Kobayashi teaches a pipe provided in the gas supplier for allowing the gas to flow therethrough (see Fig. 1), but fails to teach a pressure sensor configured to measure a pressure in the pipe, wherein the information concerning the adhesive force is obtained based on a pressure measured by the pressure sensor.
Jeunink teaches a pressure sensor (85, see Fig. 8 and [0121]) configured to measure a pressure in the pipe, wherein the information concerning the adhesive force is obtained based on a pressure measured by the pressure sensor (pressure sensor provides measure of clamping pressure, see [0139]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pressure sensor as taught by Jeunink in the gas supply control as taught by Kobayashi in order to accurately determine the pressure in the space between wafer and holder for feedback control.
For claim 16, Kobayashi fails to teach the apparatus is a lithography apparatus configured to form a pattern on a substrate.
Jeunink teaches the apparatus is a lithography apparatus configured to form a pattern on a substrate (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lithographic apparatus for forming a patterned substrate as taught by Jeunink with the separation control as taught by Kobayashi to further reduce the pressure shock that would deform or break a wafer used in a lithographic apparatus.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Mori et al. [US 5,191,218].
For claim 3, Kobayashi fails to teach the characteristic of the substrate includes at least one of an amount of warpage of the substrate, a roughness of a surface of the substrate which comes into contact with the holder, the type of a film formed on the substrate, a material of the substrate, and a thickness of the substrate.
Mori teaches the characteristic of the substrate includes at least one of an amount of warpage of the substrate, a roughness of a surface of the substrate which comes into contact with the holder (shape and roughness influence changes in chucking pressure, see col. 42-66 and Fig. 8), the type of a film formed on the substrate, a material of the substrate, and a thickness of the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the wafer shape and roughness as taught by Mori as a characteristic for control as taught by Kobayashi because the pressure has to be adjusted based on magnitude of wafer surface shape or roughness in order to accommodate for inaccurate pressure reading.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Sogard [US 2002/0130276].
For claim 4, Kobayashi fails to teach the characteristic of the holder includes at least one of a flatness of a holding surface holding the substrate, a surface roughness of the holding surface, thicknesses of a plurality of convex portions provided on the holder, and a material of the holder.
Sogard teaches the characteristic of the holder includes at least one of a flatness of a holding surface holding the substrate, a surface roughness of the holding surface, thicknesses of a plurality of convex portions provided on the holder (variation in pressure based on the rim thickness, see Figs 2-4 and [0028]-[0034]), and a material of the holder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the holder geometry characteristic as taught by Sogard as a characteristic for control as taught by Kobayashi because the pressure has to be adjusted based on the holder geometry in order to accommodate for inaccurate pressure reading due to leakage.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Ottens et al. [US 2005/0128463].
For claim 10, Kobayashi fails to teach a driving mechanism configured to drive the holder in a first direction orthogonal to the holding surface of the holder which holds the substrate; and a measurement unit configured to measure a position of the holder in the first direction, wherein the information concerning the adhesive force is obtained based on a difference between a target position of the holder in the first direction and a position of the holder in the first direction which is measured by the measurement unit.
Ottens teaches a driving mechanism (lift pins 8 with driver 9, see Fig. 2) configured to drive the holder in a first direction orthogonal to the holding surface of the holder which holds the substrate; and a measurement unit (presence detector may be formed by a sensor that measures a displacement, see [0049]) configured to measure a position of the holder in the first direction, wherein the information concerning the adhesive force is obtained based on a difference between a target position of the holder in the first direction and a position of the holder in the first direction which is measured by the measurement unit (determines presence of substrate and backfill gas is provided based on displacement, see [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the deter arrangement as taught by Ottens in the gas supply control as taught by Kobayashi in order to ensure that the substrate has been removed and know when to stop the gas supply.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hanazaki [US 2004/0182311], Suzuki [US 2007/0118246], Sheng et al. [US 2010/0254063], Tsuno et al. [US 2011/0207291], and Yasunobe [US 2019/0287842] each teach controlling the de-chucking process by adjusting gas supply.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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 H Whitesell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759