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 .
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 1-4 and 8-15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 7, 8 and 14-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11448976 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because see the mapping in the following table:
.
Instant Application Claim Number
Claim Number of US 11448976 B2
1 and 14
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
6
8
8
7
9
14
10
15
11
16
12
17
13
18
15
19
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zaal et al. [US 20050002010 A1, hereafter Zaal].
As per Claim 1, Zaal teaches a substrate holder 2 for use in a lithographic apparatus (See fig. 1) and configured to support a substrate W, the substrate holder comprising:
a main body 2 (fig. 2, Para 50) having a main body surface (See fig. 4);
a plurality of support elements (9, 10) projecting from the main body surface, wherein each support element has a distal end surface configured to support the substrate and a first height (See fig. 4, Para 50, wherein a height of approximately 100µ);
a seal unit comprising a first seal member 11 projecting from the main body surface (See fig. 4, Para 53), the first seal member 11 having an upper surface and a second height less than the first height and being positioned radially outward of and surrounding the plurality of support elements (9, 10), the upper surface having a contact region configured to contact the substrate during loading and/or unloading of the substrate (See fig. 4, Para 57); and
wherein a position of the contact region is arranged at a distance from the plurality of support elements sufficient enough such that during the loading and/or unloading of the substrate, a force applied to the first seal member by the substrate is greater than a force applied to the plurality of support elements by the substrate (See fig. 4, Para 58, wherein a frictional energy applied at the further member 13 is greater than at the support elements 9, 10).
As per Claim 2, Zaal teaches the substrate holder of claim 1, wherein the contact region is positioned adjacent to a radially outer edge of the first seal member and the radial distance from a radially outer edge of the distal end surface to the contact region is greater than 1,000 microns (See fig. 4, Para 59, wherein 3 mm outside last burl) and preferably, greater than 1,500 microns, and/or wherein the length of the first seal member in a radial direction is greater than 300 microns, and preferably, greater than 500 microns (See fig. 4, wherein an element 13 has a dimension in the radial direction larger than the 500 micron diameter burls).
As per Claim 3, Zaal teaches the substrate holder of claim 1, wherein a profile of the contact region, in a cross section through the first seal member in a radial direction, has a shape which is configured such that during the loading and/or unloading of the substrate, the substrate contacts the first seal member via at least two different points of the profile, and/or the substrate holder further comprising at least one further member projecting from the main body surface and having an upper surface, the at least one further member being positioned radially outward of and surrounding the seal unit, the upper surface of the further member having a contact region configured to contact the substrate during loading and/or unloading of the substrate, wherein a position of the contact region of the further member is arranged at a distance from the plurality of support elements sufficient enough such that during the loading and/or unloading of the substrate, a force applied to the further member by the substrate is greater than a force applied to the plurality of support elements by the substrate (See fig. 4, Para 53, wherein forces the bottom surface to move into the direction of the centre of the wafer holder 2, illustrated by arrow P).
As per Claim 8, Zaal teaches a substrate holder 2 for use in a lithographic apparatus (See fig. 1) and configured to support a substrate 1 (See fig. 2, Para 50), the substrate holder comprising:
a main body 2 (See fig. 2, Para 50)having a main body surface (See fig. 4);
a plurality of support elements (9, 10) projecting from the main body surface, wherein each support element has a distal end surface configured to support the substrate and a first height (See fig. 4, Para 50, wherein a height of approximately 100µ);
a seal unit comprising a first seal member 11 projecting from the main body surface, the first seal member 11 having an upper surface and a second height less than the first height and being positioned radially outward of the plurality of and surrounding the support elements (9 and 10), and the upper surface having a contact region configured to contact the substrate during loading and/or unloading of the substrate (Para 53); and
wherein a profile of the contact region, in a cross section through the first seal member in a radial direction, has a shape which is configured such that during the loading and/or unloading of the substrate, the substrate contacts the first seal member via at least two different points of the profile (Para 53, wherein the outer rim 11 or even a further rim element 13 that may be used to absorb the scraping energy associated with the release action).
As per Claim 9, Zaal teaches the substrate holder of claim 3, wherein the shape of the profile is linear from the upper surface of the first seal member to a radially outer edge of the first seal member, and/or wherein the shape of the profile comprises multiple linear portions from an upper surface of the first seal member to a radially outer edge of the first seal member, and/or wherein the shape of the profile is substantially step-shaped, and/or wherein the shape of the profile is curved from an upper surface of the first seal member to a radially outer edge of the first seal member (See fig. 4).
As per Claim 12, Zaal teaches the substrate holder of claim 1, wherein the seal unit comprises a second seal member 11 projecting from the main body surface and positioned radially inward of the first seal member, the second member configured to restrict the passage of liquid between the substrate and the main body surface radially inward past the second seal member, and/or wherein the first seal member is configured to provide a pressure drop radially inward of the first seal member relative to the pressure in a region radially outward of the seal unit (See fig. 4, Para 53).
As per Claim 13, Zaal teaches the substrate holder of claim 12, wherein the first seal member is configured to provide a low pressure region between the first seal member and the second seal member (Para 53).
As per Claim 15, Zaal teaches a lithographic apparatus comprising the substrate holder configured to support the substrate according to claim 1 (See fig. 1-2, Para 53).
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) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaal in view of Klomp et al. [US 20150370178 A1, hereafter Klomp].
As per Claim 4, Zaal teaches the substrate holder of claim 1.
Zaal does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of support elements, the first seal member, or both comprise a coating made of diamond-like carbon, diamond, silicon carbide, boron nitride or boron carbon nitride, and the coating forms the distal end surface of the plurality of support elements and/or forms the upper surface of the first seal member, and the contact region of the first seal member is on the coating, and/or the at least one further member comprising a coating made of diamond-like carbon, diamond, silicon carbide, boron nitride or boron carbon nitride, wherein the coating forms the upper surface of the further member and the contact region of the further member is on the coating of the further member.
Klomp teaches the dielectric used by embodiments of the invention to form the burls 10, 30 may be a material which provides sufficient wear resistance to allow the electrostatic clamp to have a useful lifetime. For example, the dielectric may be sufficiently wear resistant to allow tens of wafers (or one hundred wafers or more) to be held by and removed from the electrostatic clamp per hour, for a period of months. Diamond-like carbon (DLC) may provide sufficient wear resistance (Para 117 and 127).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate the coating material as claimed in order to provide a substrate support subjected to less wear).
As per Claim 5, Zaal teaches a substrate holder 2 for use in a lithographic apparatus (See fig. 1) and configured to support a substrate W, the substrate holder comprising:
a main body 2 having a main body surface (See fig. 2 and 4, Para 50);
a plurality of support elements (9, 10) projecting from the main body surface, wherein each support element has a distal end surface configured to support the substrate and a first height (See fig. 4, Para 50);
a seal unit comprising a first seal member 11 projecting from the main body surface (Para 53), the first seal member 11 having a second height less than the first height and being positioned radially outward of and surrounding the plurality of support elements 9 and 10 (See fig. 4, Para 57), and
wherein a position of the contact region of the further member is arranged at a distance from the plurality of support elements sufficient enough such that during the loading and/or unloading of the substrate, a force applied to the further member by the substrate is greater than a force applied to the plurality of support elements by the substrate (See fig. 4, Para 58, wherein a frictional energy applied at the further member 13 is greater than at the support elements 9, 10).
Zaal does not explicitly teach at least one further member projecting from the main body surface and having an upper surface, the at least one further member being positioned radially outward of and surrounding the seal unit, the at least one further member comprising a coating forming the upper surface of the further member, the coating having a contact region configured to contact the substrate during loading and/or unloading of the substrate, wherein the coating is made of diamond-like carbon, diamond, silicon carbide, boron nitride or boron carbon nitride.
Klomp teaches the dielectric used by embodiments of the invention to form the burls 10, 30 may be a material which provides sufficient wear resistance to allow the electrostatic clamp to have a useful lifetime. For example, the dielectric may be sufficiently wear resistant to allow tens of wafers (or one hundred wafers or more) to be held by and removed from the electrostatic clamp per hour, for a period of months. Diamond-like carbon (DLC) may provide sufficient wear resistance (Para 117 and 127).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate the coating material as claimed in order to provide a substrate support subjected to less wear.
As per Claim 6, Zaal in view of Klomp teaches the substrate holder of claim 4.
Zaal further disclosed wherein a profile of the contact region of the further member, in a cross section through the further member in a radial direction, has a shape which is configured such that during the loading and/or unloading of the substrate, the substrate contacts the further member via at least two different points of the profile (See fig. 4, Para 53, wherein the outer rim 11 or even a further rim element 13 that may be used to absorb the scraping energy associated with the release action).
As per Claim 7, Zaal in view of Klomp teaches the substrate holder of claim 4.
Zaal further disclosed wherein the further member has a third height less than the first height, and/or wherein the further member has an annular shape and comprises a plurality of segments, and/or wherein the further member comprises a plurality of further support elements (See fig. 4, Para 53).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaal in view of Laurent et al. [US 9785055 B2, hereafter Laurent].
As per Claim 14, Zaal teaches the substrate holder of claim 1.
Zaal does not explicitly teach at least one extraction opening formed in the main body for the extraction of fluid into the main body from between the main body surface and the substrate, the at least one extraction opening being arranged radially inward of and adjacent to the first seal member, and/or wherein the substrate holder is configured to control the pressure between the main body and the substrate when the substrate is being loaded and/or unloaded.
Laurent teaches the first and second drains 10, 20 are each provided with an opening 12, 22 and a channel 16, 26. The channel 16, 26 is in fluid communication with the respective opening 12, 22 through a passageway 14, 24. The opening 12, 22 may be provided at one or more discrete locations around the periphery of the edge of the substrate W and may, in plan, be slits or circular openings or any other shape. In an embodiment three discrete circular openings are provided around the edge of the substrate W, for instance. An opening 12, 22 may only be a small opening, for example of 2 mm diameter, in the periphery of a substrate W (See fig. 6, Column 11 lines 8-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate immersion lithography and extraction system as claimed in order to improve the quality of image transfer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MESFIN ASFAW whose telephone number is (571)270-5247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 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.
/MESFIN T ASFAW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights