DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 13-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,243,768 B2 issued to Maassen et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of application 19/029708 are directed to the same invention of claims of U.S. 12,243,768 B2. In this instance the claims of application 19/029708 are broader than that of U.S. 12,243,768 B2. As such the claim of application 19/029708 is met by claims of U.S. 12,243,768 B2. No further analysis is necessary.
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 13, 14, 17-19, 21-25, 27, 28 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mertens et al. [US 2006/0102849 A1] in view of Bex et al. [US 2012/0274920 A1].
Regarding claims 13, 18, 22 and 27, Mertens et al. discloses a substrate holder (WT) for use in a lithographic apparatus (Fig. 1) and configured to support a substrate (W), the substrate holder comprising:
a main body (WT, as shown in Figs. 2, 4, 7) having a first surface (with burls 2) and a second surface (with burls 12) opposite to the first surface (as shown in Figs. 2, 4, 7);
a plurality of burls (2, 3, 9A, 9B) projecting from the first surface (as shown in Figs. 2-10) and each having a distal end surface which substantially conforms to a support plane and is configured to support the substrate (W), the plurality of burls comprising a first group of burls (9B) and a second group of burls (9A) surrounding the first group of burls (as shown in Figs. 2, 4, 7);
a plurality of further burls (12, 13) projecting from the second surface (as shown in Figs. 2, 4, 7) and each having a distal end surface which substantially conforms to a plane so as to support the substrate holder (WT) on a substrate support (11); and
wherein the diameter of the burls is in the range of about 210 μm to about 270 μm (paragraphs [0064], [0071] and [0092]-[0095] teaches the dimensions of the burls), and wherein the second group of burls (9A) has a cross-sectional area in a plane parallel to the support plane that is larger than the cross-section of the first group of burls (as shown in Fig. 7, burls 9A are larger than 9B).
Mertens et al. does not teach an edge seal projecting from the first surface and extending around the plurality of burls so as to restrict gas flow when a substrate is held by the substrate holder, and a second edge seal projecting from the second surface and extending around the plurality of further burls.
However, Bex et al. disclose a substrate holder for use in a lithographic apparatus comprising an edge seal projecting from the first surface and extending around the plurality of burls so as to restrict gas flow when a substrate is held by the substrate holder and a second edge seal projecting from the second surface and extending around the plurality of further burls (as shown in Figs. 12-14, item 500, see also paragraph [0114] and [0116]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide first and second edge seal projecting from the first surface and the second surface, as taught by Bex et al. in the system of Mertens et al. because such a modification provides a suitable alternative configuration of a substrate holder wherein the seal prevents the atmosphere either side of the barrier protrusion from crossing the barrier protrusion (paragraph [0114] of Bex et al.).
Regarding claims 14 and 28, Mertens et al. discloses wherein the second group (9A) of burls has a different size from that of the first group (9B) of burls (as shown in Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 17, Bex et al. discloses wherein the edge seal has a height shorter than that of the burls (as shown in Figs. 12-14, 500 is shorter than 106).
Regarding claims 19 and 31, Mertens et al. discloses further comprising a heater, and/or a sensor, and/or an electrode to form an electrostatic clamp (paragraphs [0101-[0102]).
Regarding claims 21 and 24, Mertens et al. discloses wherein the burls have a height of 150 μm, and/or a pitch of the burls is in the range of about 0.5 mm to 3 mm, wherein the spatial density of the second group of burls is greater than the spatial density of the first group of burls (paragraphs [0064], [0071] and [0092]-[0095] teaches the dimensions of the burls).
Regarding claim 23, Mertens et al. discloses wherein at least some burls have their stiffness varied by their cross-sectional area, by their shape or by their composition, from other burls (paragraph [0103]).
Regarding claim 30, Mertens et al. discloses wherein the plurality of burls and/or the plurality of further burls is integral with the main body and formed by additive or subtractive techniques or deposited on the main body and formed of a different material from the main body (paragraphs [0065] and [0069]).
Regarding claims 25 and 32, Mertens et al. discloses a lithographic apparatus for applying a pattern to a substrate, the lithographic apparatus comprising the holder (as shown in Fig. 1)
Claims 15, 16, 20, 26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mertens et al. in view of Bex et al. and further in view of Poiesz et al. [US 2018/0190534 A1].
Regarding claims 15, 16, 20, 26 and 29, Mertens et al. in view of Bex et al. discloses the substrate holder wherein burls 2 and 3 are different (paragraphs [0068] and [0069]).
Mertens et al. in view of Bex et al. does not teach wherein the second group of burls is formed of a different material from the first group of burls, wherein the burls are of a different material from the main body, wherein all or parts of the burls have a coating comprising a layer of diamond-like carbon (DLC) or diamond, wherein the second group of burls is formed using a different technique from the first group burls.
However, Poiesz et al. discloses a layer of diamond-like carbon comprises at least one additive selected from the group consisting of Si, N, Mo and Fl (paragraph [0073]), wherein layer of diamond-like carbon can reduce the coefficient of friction between the burls and the substrate by a factor of about 2 compared to burls made of SiSiC (paragraph [0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide diamond-like carbon (DLC) or diamond material, as taught by Poiesz et al. in the system of Mertens et al. in view of Bex et al. wherein the second group of burls is formed of a different material from the first group of burls, wherein the burls are of a different material from the main body and the second group of burls is formed using a different technique from the first group burls, because such a modification provides a suitable alternative configuration of a substrate holder wherein the coefficient of friction between the burls and the substrate is reduced by a factor of about 2 (paragraph [0070] Poiesz et al.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEORAM PERSAUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DEORAM PERSAUD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights