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 § 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-9, 12-18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dikjsman (US 2007/0145643) in view Modderman (US 2006/0132733), and Shibazaki (US 2010/0296068).
Regarding claim 1, Dikjsman discloses a method of operating a lithographic apparatus ([0004]), comprising: performing an exposure operation on a first substrate disposed underneath a projection system configured to provide exposure radiation for patterning the first substrate ([0027-28], Fig. 1c), wherein a first stage is configured to support the first substrate (first stage with a first substrate of a dual stage or multistage system, [0046]); and the second stage is configured to support a second substrate that is to be patterned (second stage with a second substrate of a dual stage or multistage system, [0046]); and wherein the third stage is configured to accommodate a component that includes at least one of a sensor and a cleaning device (device performing a measurement on a stage at a first location, [0046]; such as comparison of alignment marks by alignment apparatus constitutes inclusion of a sensor, [0063]);.
Dikjsman teaches a method substantially as claimed. Dikjsman does not disclose how each of the first stage, the second stage, and the third stage are moved in a dual stage or multi stage system. Dikjsman does not disclose performing a post-exposure scrum sweep operation, and starting a pre-exposure scrum sweep operation after starting a substrate exchange operation; wherein during the post-exposure scrum sweep operation the first stage moves away from underneath the projection system while a third stage moves to underneath the projection system, wherein during the pre-exposure scrum sweep operation, the third stage moves away from underneath the projection system while a second stage moves to underneath the projection system, and the second stage is configured to support a second substrate that is to be patterned; wherein during the substrate exchange operation, the first substrate is unloaded from the first stage
However, in the same field of endeavor of imprint lithography, Modderman teaches wherein during the substrate exchange operation, the first substrate is unloaded from the first stage (act of loading/unloading by load/unload robot, Modderman [0052]).
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of lithography, Shibazaki teaches performing a post-exposure scrum sweep operation ([0212-13]), and starting a pre-exposure scrum sweep operation after starting a substrate exchange operation ([0212-13]); wherein during the post-exposure scrum sweep operation the first stage moves away from underneath the projection system while a third stage moves to underneath the projection system ([0212-13]), wherein during the pre-exposure scrum sweep operation, the third stage moves away from underneath the projection system while a second stage moves to underneath the projection system ([0212-13]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified method of Dikjsman to include the positioning system PW and positioning system 22, 23 of Modderman in order to have a way to move the stages so as to be able to perform the lithography as taught by [0046] of Dikjsman.
It further would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Dikjsman in view of Modderman to arrange to perform a post-exposure scrum sweep operation, and starting a pre-exposure scrum sweep operation after starting a substrate exchange operation; wherein during the post-exposure scrum sweep operation the first stage moves away from underneath the projection system while a third stage moves to underneath the projection system, wherein during the pre-exposure scrum sweep operation, the third stage moves away from underneath the projection system while a second stage moves to underneath the projection system because [0054] of Modderman teaches confining immersion liquid during substrate exchange to prevent leaks and Shibazaki teaches a scrum sweep operation to move immersion liquid where it is needed for exposure, which would be with the first substrate stage, as taught by [0213] of Shibazaki.
Regarding claim 2, Dikjsman discloses A lithographic apparatus ([0004]) comprising: a projection system configured to provide an exposure radiation for patterning a substrate ([0028], Fig. 1c); a first stage configured to support a first substrate that is to be patterned (first stage with a first substrate of a dual stage or multistage system, [0046]); a second stage configured to support a second substrate that is to be patterned (second stage with a second substrate of a dual stage or multistage system, [0046]); a third stage accommodating a component that includes at least one of a sensor and a cleaning device (device performing a measurement on a stage at a first location, [0046]; such as comparison of alignment marks by alignment apparatus constitutes inclusion of a sensor, [0063]); wherein the control system is configure to: perform an exposure operation on the first substrate ([0028], Fig. 1c)).
Dikjsman teaches a method substantially as claimed. Dikjsman does not disclose how each of the first stage, the second stage, and the third stage are moved in a dual stage or multi stage system. Dikjsman does not disclose a substrate unloader configured to unload the first substrate from the first stage during a substrate exchange operation; and a control system configured to control positioning of the first stage, the second stage, the third stage and the substrate unloader, wherein the control system is configure to: perform a post-exposure scrum sweep operation, start a pre-exposure scrum sweep operation after starting the substrate exchange operation, during the post-exposure scrum sweep operation, move the first stage away from underneath the projection system while moving the third stage to underneath the projection system, and during the pre-exposure scrum sweep operation, move the third stage away from underneath the projection system while moving the second stage to underneath the projection system.
However, in the same field of endeavor of imprint lithography, Modderman teaches a substrate unloader configured to unload the first substrate from the first stage during a substrate exchange operation (act of loading/unloading by load/unload robot, Modderman [0052]); and a control system configured to control positioning of the first stage, the second stage, the third stage and the substrate unloader (Figs. 6-7; WT1 and WT2 move relative to that supporting structure; positioning system PW configured to control position of WT1 and WT2; therefore independent, [0053], Figs. 6-7; third table 21 also moves independently, [0058]; movement of the load/unload robot, [0052])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the imprint apparatus of Dikjsman, to include the positioning system PW and positioning system 22, 23 of Modderman in order to have a way to move the stages so as to be able to perform the lithography as taught by [0046] of Dikjsman.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of lithography, Shibazaki teaches wherein the control system is configure to: perform a post-exposure scrum sweep operation ([0212-13]), start a pre-exposure scrum sweep operation after starting the substrate exchange operation ([0212-13]), during the post-exposure scrum sweep operation, move the first stage away from underneath the projection system while moving the third stage to underneath the projection system ([0212-13]), and during the pre-exposure scrum sweep operation, move the third stage away from underneath the projection system while moving the second stage to underneath the projection system ([0212-13]).
It further would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control system of Dikjsman in view of Modderman to perform a post-exposure scrum sweep operation, start a pre-exposure scrum sweep operation after starting the substrate exchange operation, during the post-exposure scrum sweep operation, move the first stage away from underneath the projection system while moving the third stage to underneath the projection system, and during the pre-exposure scrum sweep operation, move the third stage away from underneath the projection system while moving the second stage to underneath the projection system because [0054] of Modderman teaches confining immersion liquid during substrate exchange to prevent leaks and Shibazaki teaches a scrum sweep operation to move immersion liquid where it is needed for exposure, which would be with the first substrate stage, as taught by [0213] of Shibazaki.
Regarding claim 3, Dikjsman as modified teaches wherein during the pre-exposure scrum sweep operation, the second stage and the third stage are configured to perform patterning device alignment (alignment performed by alignment apparatus, [0063]).
Regarding claim 8, Dikjsman as modified teaches wherein the component includes the sensor that is arranged to measure an aberration of the projection system (misalignment by comparing alignment marks, Dikjsman [0063]).
Regarding claim 9, Dikjsman as modified teaches wherein the component includes the sensor that is arranged to measure an aberration of the projection system (misalignment by comparing alignment marks, Dikjsman [0063]).
Regarding claim 12, Dikjsman as modified teaches wherein the control system is further configured to control the first stage, the second stage and the substrate unloader so as to swap the locations of the first stage and the second stage before starting the substrate exchange operation (as modified, Modderman [0053-56]; Shibazaki [0212-13]).
Regarding claim 13, Dikjsman as modified teaches wherein the control system is further configured to control the first stage, the second stage and the substrate unloader so as to swap the locations of the first stage and the second stage before starting the substrate exchange operation (as modified, Modderman [0053-56]; Shibazaki [0212-13]).
Regarding claim 14, Dikjsman as modified teaches wherein the control system is further configured to control the third stage to be located underneath or in the proximity of the projection system when starting the substrate exchange operation (as modified, this is how the components are located, Modderman [0053] [0058]; Shibazaki [0212-13]).
Regarding claim 15, Dikjsman as modified teaches wherein the control system is further configured to control the third stage to be located underneath or in the proximity of the projection system when starting the substrate exchange operation (as modified, this is how the components are located, Modderman [0053] [0058]; Shibazaki [0212-13]).
Regarding claim 16, Dikjsman as modified teaches wherein the lithographic apparatus further comprises a liquid handling system configured to supply and confine immersion liquid to a space defined between the projection system and at least one of the first substrate, the second substrate, the first stage, the second stage and the third stage (as modified, confined as taught by [0054] of Modderman during the exchange, as taught by [0213] of Shibazaki).
Regarding claim 17, Dikjsman as modified teaches wherein the lithographic apparatus further comprises a liquid handling system configured to supply and confine immersion liquid to a space defined between the projection system and at least one of the first substrate, the second substrate, the first stage, the second stage and the third stage (as modified, confined as taught by [0054] of Modderman during the exchange, as taught by [0213] of Shibazaki).
Regarding claims 18 and 21, parent claim 2 recites “at least one of a sensor and a cleaning device.” As noted above regarding claim 2, Dikjsman as modified includes a sensor. Accordingly, claim 18’s recitation “whereing the cleaning device is configured to clean the liquid handling system further modifies the cleaning device of claim 2 but is not required because it is recited in the alternative. Accordingly, claim 18 is obvious over Dikjsman as modified.
Claim 10-11 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dikjsman (US 2007/0145643) in view Modderman (US 2006/0132733), and Shibazaki (US 2010/0296068) as applied to claims 8-9 and 16 above, respectively, and further in view of Dikjsman ‘827 (US 2008/0003827).
Regarding claim 10, Dikjsman as modified by Modderman and Shibazaki teaches an apparatus substantially as claimed. Dikjsman as modified by Modderman and Shibazaki does not teach wherein the control system is further configured to predict a distortion of the patterning or a change in the aberration of the projection system.
However, in the same field of endeavor of imprint lithography ([0006]), Dikjsman ‘827 teaches wherein the control system is further configured to predict a distortion of the patterning or a change in the aberration of the projection system (computer 140 detects contamination of nozzle plate 118 [0065]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the imprint apparatus of Dikjsman, to monitor the contamination level and determine that the system is aberrant and should be cleaned because [0064] of Dikjsman ‘827 teaches that contamination can lead to incorrect deposition and [0065] teaches montoring for this and cleaning when appropriate.
Regarding claim 11, Dikjsman as modified by Modderman and Shibazaki teaches an apparatus substantially as claimed. Dikjsman as modified by Modderman and Shibazaki does not wherein the control system is further configured to predict a distortion of the patterning or a change in the aberration of the projection system.
However, in the same field of endeavor of imprint lithography ([0006]), Dikjsman ‘827 teaches wherein the control system is further configured to predict a distortion of the patterning or a change in the aberration of the projection system (computer 140 detects contamination of nozzle plate 118 [0065]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the imprint apparatus of Dikjsman, to monitor the contamination level and determine that the system is aberrant and should be cleaned because [0064] of Dikjsman ‘827 teaches that contamination can lead to incorrect deposition and [0065] teaches montoring for this and cleaning when appropriate.
Regarding claim 22, Dikjsman as modified teaches an apparatus substantially as claimed. Dikjsman does not disclose wherein the liquid handling system comprises an actuatable flow plate configured to be independently position-controlled with respect to the projection system and with respect to the first stage, the second stage and the third stage; and wherein the control system is configured to control a position of the actuatable flow plate as a function of relative position, velocity and/or acceleration of one of the first stage, the second stage and the third stage with respect to die projection system.
However, in the same field of endeavor of imprint lithography ([0006]), Dikjsman ‘827 teaches wherein the liquid handling system comprises an actuatable flow plate (piezo-electric actuator for pump chamber 110, [0053]) configured to be independently position-controlled with respect to the projection system and with respect to the first stage, the second stage and the third stage (relative movement, [0050]); and wherein the control system is configured to control a position of the actuatable flow plate as a function of relative position, velocity and/or acceleration of one of the first stage, the second stage and the third stage with respect to die projection system ([0050]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the imprint apparatus of Dikjsman to have a piezo-electric actuator for a pump chamber because [0053] of Dikjsman ‘827 teaches that this is a predictable way to dispense a liquid for imprint lithography and to control it with the positioning system of Modderman based on [0053] and [0058] of Modderman.
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dikjsman (US 2007/0145643) in view Modderman (US 2006/0132733), and Shibazaki (US 2010/0296068) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Dikjsman ‘827 (US 2008/0003827) or Petrus De Jong (US 2010/0097587).
Regarding claim 19, Dikjsman as modified by Modderman and Shibazaki teaches an apparatus substantially as claimed. Dikjsman as modified by Modderman and Shibazaki does not teach wherein the component includes the sensor, wherein the sensor comprises a monitoring device configured to monitor a contamination level of the liquid handling system.
However, in the same field of endeavor of imprint lithography ([0006]), Dikjsman ‘827 teaches wherein the component includes the sensor (computer 140 detects contamination of nozzle plate 118 [0065]), wherein the sensor comprises a monitoring device configured to monitor a contamination level of the liquid handling system (detection by computer 140 of contamination of nozzle plate 118, [0065]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the imprint apparatus of Dikjsman, to monitor the contamination to clean automatically like the cleaning apparatus of Dikjsman ‘827 because the cleaning apparatus remedies contamination that can lead to incorrect deposition of resin as taught by [0064] of Dikjsman ‘827. Computer 140’s ability to detect contamination entails a sensor (Dikjsman ‘827 [0065]) to determine when that cleaning is appropriate.
Separately, in the same field of endeavor of imprint lithography ([0145]), Petrus De Jong teaches wherein the component includes the sensor (sensor measures and detects clear residues, [0115]), wherein the sensor comprises a monitoring device configured to monitor a contamination level of the liquid handling system (measures clear residues to determine cleaning was effective (contamination was removed, [0115]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the imprint apparatus of Dikjsman, to monitor the contamination because [0115] of Petrus De Jong teaches to do so to determine cleaning effectiveness.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dikjsman (US 2007/0145643) in view Modderman (US 2006/0132733), and Shibazaki (US 2010/0296068) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Petrus De Jong (US 2010/0097587).
Regarding claim 20, Dikjsman as modified teaches wherein one of the first stage and the second stage is configured to support a dummy substrate configured to oppose the liquid handling system (no exclusion that a substrate is a dummy substrate). Dikjsman does not teachwherein one of the first stage and the second stage is configured to support a dummy substrate configured to oppose the liquid handling system so that a cleaning can be performed using a cleaning liquid.
However, in the same field of endeavor of imprint lithography ([0145]), Petrus de Jong teaches wherein one of the first stage and the second stage is configured to support a dummy substrate configured to oppose the liquid handling system so that a cleaning can be performed using a cleaning liquid ([0064-65]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the imprint apparatus of Dikjsman, to support a dummy substrate on the first stage or the second stage as part of a solution preventing a drying stain as taught by [0064] of Petrus De Jong.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 and 21 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-9 and 11-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,147,167. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each and every element of those claims are taught by the cited claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,147,167.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights