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 (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) 1-5 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pellens et al. (Pellens) (2009/0128792) in view of Wagenleitner et al. (Wagenleitner) (2022/0301907).
Regarding claim 1, Pellens discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1) for forming a pattern (MA) onto a substrate (W, para 0003, 0020), comprising: a table (WT, Fig. 3) with a surface, a substrate (W, 100) with a plurality of pattern areas being mounted on said surface (Fig. 3), at least one aperture (222) being formed in said surface; and a measuring system (210a, 210b) configured to capture alignment marks (104) formed on or in said substrate from the surface side, via said aperture (para 0045, 0046). However, Pellens does not disclose said aperture having a size that includes one pattern area and part of the surrounding boundary. Wagenleitner discloses a device for alignment of substrate with aperture (9) on the surface of the table (WT) holding a substrate (20) and the aperture having a size that includes a majority of the surface of the substrate (Fig. 3, para 0152). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide at least one aperture having a size that includes one pattern area and part of the surrounding boundary to the invention of Pellens in order to ensure that the alignment mark is easily found without undue search to align the alignment mark with a small aperture, and also allows detection of different substrates that may have different mark placement since merely changing of a size of an element or a structure required only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, although Pellens does not disclose wherein the width of said aperture is greater than the sum of the width of a pattern area and the width of an alignment mark in one direction, as stated above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the width of the aperture as claimed in order to ensure that the align mark is easily found and aligned with the aperture since merely changing of a size of an element or a structure required only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, although Pellens does not disclose wherein at least three apertures are formed on the surface, Fig. 3 in Pellens shows at least two and para 0061 discloses “one or more” apertures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide at least three apertures in order to simultaneously detect three alignment marks to improve throughput since it has been held that merely duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Pellens discloses wherein the substrate is a semiconductor wafer.
Regarding claim 5, although Pellens does not disclose wherein the size of the aperture is greater than the size of each pattern area that depends upon a maximum size of a reticle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to base the size of the aperture on the size of each pattern area that depends upon a maximum size of a reticle since typically the projection exposure apparatus of Pellens use reduction lenses and the size of the pattern area would depend on the size of the reticle, and providing the aperture greater than the size of the pattern area would ensure that alignment mark is detected through the aperture for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 8, Pellens discloses wherein said apparatus is a projection exposure unit (Fig. 1, para 0005).
Regarding claim 9, Pellens discloses wherein said apparatus is a laser-processing unit (Fig. 1, para 0027).
Regarding claim 10, Pellens discloses an alignment system (Fig. 3) comprising: a table (WT) with a surface, a substrate (100) with a plurality of pattern areas being mounted on said surface (Fig. 3), at least one aperture (222) being formed on said surface; a measuring system configured to capture alignment marks formed on or in said substrate from the surface side, via said aperture (para 0045, 0046); and a (46) configured to calculate alignment-correcting values based on the positions of the alignment marks (para 0058, 0061, 0062). However, Pellens does not disclose said aperture having a size that includes one pattern area and part of the surrounding boundary. Wagenleitner discloses a device for alignment of substrate with aperture (9) on the surface of the table (WT) holding a substrate (20) and the aperture having a size that includes a majority of the surface of the substrate (Fig. 3, para 0152). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide at least one aperture having a size that includes one pattern area and part of the surrounding boundary to the invention of Pellens in order to ensure that the alignment mark is easily found without undue search to align the alignment mark with a small aperture, and also allows detection of different substrates that may have different mark placement since merely changing of a size of an element or a structure required only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Pellens discloses a method (Fig. 3) for aligning a substrate (100), comprising: a) mounting a substrate with a plurality of pattern areas on a surface of a table (WT), at least one aperture (222) being formed on said surface; and b) capturing alignment marks formed on or in said substrate from the surface side, via said aperture (para 0045, 0046); and c) calculating alignment-correcting values based on the positions of the alignment marks (para 0058, 0061, 0062). However, Pellens does not disclose said aperture having a size that includes one pattern area and part of the surrounding boundary. Wagenleitner discloses a device for alignment of substrate with aperture (9) on the surface of the table (WT) holding a substrate (20) and the aperture having a size that includes a majority of the surface of the substrate (Fig. 3, para 0152). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide at least one aperture having a size that includes one pattern area and part of the surrounding boundary to the invention of Pellens in order to ensure that the alignment mark is easily found without undue search to align the alignment mark with a small aperture, and also allows detection of different substrates that may have different mark placement since merely changing of a size of an element or a structure required only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pellens et al. (Pellens) in view of Wagenleitner et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mori et al. (Mori) (6,018,395).
Regarding claim 6, the further difference between the claimed invention and the modified Pellens is wherein the alignment marks are provided outside of each pattern area. Mori discloses in Fig. 4 a substrate (3), with pattern areas (419) and alignment marks (422) provided outside of each pattern area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the substrate with the alignment marks provided outside of each pattern area as taught by Mori since such substrate arrangement maximizes the usable area for increasing overall density of functional pattern. Further, since the substrate is not a part of the claimed apparatus, the location of the alignment mark on the substrate is merely intended use of the apparatus and no patentable weight is given.
Regarding claim 7, the further difference between the claimed invention and the modified Pellens is wherein the plurality of pattern areas is arranged in a grid. Mori discloses in Fig. 4, a substrate with the plurality of pattern areas is arranged in a grid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the substrate with the plurality of pattern areas is arranged in a grid since such arrangement allows alignment and lowers overlay errors. Further, since the substrate is not a part of the claimed apparatus, the arrangement of the pattern areas is merely intended use of the apparatus and no patentable weight is given.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Heinle (6,525,805) discloses in Fig. 4, a substrate table (50) with a top surface (52) comprising an aperture (108) for detecting alignment mark on the substrate (60). However, Heinle does not disclose the size of the aperture.
Van Buel et al. (2007/0153253) discloses in Fig. 2, a substrate table (WT) and detecting alignment mark (WM1) of the substrate (W) thought the top surface of the substrate table using an optical system in the substrate table. However, Van Buel et al. does not explicitly disclose an aperture or a window on the surface of the table.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER B KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, 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.
/PETER B KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 September 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights