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
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Lafarre et al (US 2013/0077065) in view of Ottens et al (U.S.Pat. 9,188,882 B2).
With respect to claims 1, 7 and 15, Lafarre discloses a wafer stage (figure 7) comprising: a wafer stage to position an immersion hood over a first particle capture area (35) in the wafer stage; moving the wafer stage to position the immersion hood over a second particle capture area (31) in the wafer stage (see col.7, lines 40-45). Lafarre further discloses a plurality of sensors (such as: a first sensor ) positioned for accurately positioning the wafer (W) onto the wafer stage (see paragraph [0053]).
As to claims 2-6 and 8-12 and 19-20, the wafer stage is configured to move the wafer (W) in the X-Y and Z directions (see figure 1). In the broadest sense, these directions (X-Y and Z) can be considered as the first, second routing tracks as recited in the claims. Thus, Ottens discloses substantially all of the limitations of the instant claims. Lafarre does not expressly disclose moving the wafer stage to position the immersion hood over the sensors and to define the routing tracks over the particle capture area and to position the immersion hood over an area of receiving wafer on the wafer stage, or to align a position of the immersion hood relative to the wafer stage as recited in the claims. Ottens discloses an immersion exposure apparatus having an immersion hood/a liquid confinement structure (12) placed over a wafer stage. Ottens teaches moving the wafer stage with respect to a structure in a first, second and third directions and with respect to the immersion hood/liquid confinement structure (see claims 1-5 of Ottens). In view of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to move the wafer stage of Lafarre in the first and second routing tracks with respect to the immersion hood as well as to calibrate the position of the immersion hood relative to the wafer stage as suggested by Ottens. The purpose of doing so would have been to properly expose a desired pattern onto the substrate as intended.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,092,958 (“Lee”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed to substantially the same inventive concept of controlling an immersion lithography wafer stage by positioning an immersion hood over one or more particle capture areas and moving the wafer stage to define a routing track over the particle capture area before wafer processing, thereby reducing particles prior art to lithographic exposure (for example see claim 1 of Lee).
Specifically, Lee teaches positioning the immersion hood over a sensor, positioning the immersion hood over a particle capture are, moving the wafer stage such that the immersion hood traverses the particle capture area long a routing track, and thereafter proceeding with wafer processing. Lee further teaches that the routing track may assume various configurations and that the immersion hood may subsequently be positioned for wafer processing following the particle removal operation. It is noted that the instant claims are written somewhat more broadly than the patented claims, the differences therefore do not render the claimed invention patentably distinct. For example, whereas the patented claims recite first and second particle capture areas and corresponding sensors, the instant claims broadly reticle only a first particle capture area and a first sensor. Likewise, the instant claims omit certain structural and operational limitations present in the patented claims. These omissions merely broaden the scope of protection sought and would have been obvious modifications of the patented invention rather than a distinct inventive concept.
Independent claim 9 additionally recites flowing immersion fluid during definition of the routing track. Lee likewise teaches supplying immersion fluid while the immersion hood traverses the particles the particle capture area and controlling the immersion fluid during the cleaning operation. Accordingly, this limitation merely recites an obvious operational implementation of the patented process.
Independent claim 15 further recites patterning the wafer after the routing operation. Lee likewise performs the routing operation as part of an immersion lithography process preceding wafer exposure. Incorporating the conventional wafer patterning step following the routine operation merely defines the intended lithographic use of the cleaned wafer stage and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-20 merely recite particular routing geometries, flow parameters, recycling operations, stage speeds, wavelengths, vacuum chuck operation, and other implementation details that constitute obvious variations or routine optimization of the patented process and therefore likewise fail to define a patentably distinct invention.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 of the instant application are rejected under the doctrine of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,092,958 B2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG HENRY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Toan Minh 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.
HUNG HENRY NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2882
Hvn
7/28/26
/HUNG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights