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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/11/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: retaining feature in claim 1 and mating features in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Applicant defines the retaining feature as radial tabs and the mating features as slots
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo US 2017/0011892 (hereinafter Guo).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re. Cl. 16, Guo discloses: An automated attachment system (Fig. 3a) for attaching a leveling rim (24, 25, Fig. 3a-b) having a retainer ring (25, Fig. 31-b) and a containment rim (24, Fig. 3a) to a semiconductor wafer (22, Fig. 3a), comprising: a chuck (20, Fig. 3a) capable of receiving thereon a semiconductor wafer (see Fig. 3a); a plurality of actuatable wafer guides (27, Fig. 3a and 6) configured to guide the wafer into the retaining ring (see Fig. 3a and 6, as holding 22 above 20 until 20 is raised so that 27 are below the top surface of 20 as shown in Fig. 3a); and a plurality of actuatable ring guides (surfaces of 20 which engage with and hold 25 thereon as shown in Fig. 6, also annotated in figure 3b) to positionally maintain the retainer ring about the chuck as the wafer is guided into the retainer ring (see Fig. 6); and as the containment rim is subjected to removable association with the retainer ring enclosing the wafer circumference therebetween (see Fig. 3a and 6, 24 and 25 are removably connected via the connection shown in Fig. 3b and encloses the wafer 22 therebetween).
Re. Cl. 20, Guo discloses: the removable association comprises an insertion of tabs into slots (see Fig. 3a-b, 242, 252 are formed as tabs and recesses).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view Chang US 2006/0272561 (hereinafter Chang).
Re. Cl. 17, Guo discloses that the chuck can be an electrostatic chuck, a mechanical chuck or the like (see Paragraph 0038) but does not specifically disclose a vacuum chuck. Chang discloses a system (Fig. 1) which includes a chuck (220) that can be in the form of a vacuum mechanism, static electricity mechanism, etc. (Paragraph 0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chuck of Guo to be a vacuum chuck as disclosed by Chang with reasonable expectation of success since it has been held obvious to replace one known means with another to achieve a predictable result. KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Watanabe US 20180286717 (hereinafter Watanabe).
Re. Cl. 18, Guo does not disclose how the stage (20) is lifted other than there is a driving mechanism (21) which activates the plurality of ring guides and wafer guides (see Fig. 3a and 6, by moving 20, the annotated surfaces and 27 are activated by mechanism 21) and therefore does not disclose they are actuated by pressure. Watanabe discloses an attachment system (Fig. 2) which includes a driving mechanism (602, Fig. 2) which is activated by pressure (see Paragraph 0043, pneumatic or hydraulic driving mechanism).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the driving mechanism of Guo to be a pressure activator as disclosed by Watanabe with reasonable expectation of success since pressure actuators are known actuators which have a simple and compact design while allowing for high force and speeds.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Yamamoto US 2008/0023149 (hereinafter Yamamoto).
Re. Cl. 19, Guo does not disclose that the wafer alignment to the retainer ring is subject to LED sighting. Yamamoto discloses that it is known to use LED sighting to confirm alignment of the wafer on its mounting stage (Paragraph 0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Guo device to include the LED sighting of Yamamoto with reasonable expectation of success since Yamamoto states that such a modification enables alignment of the wafer to be adjusted as necessary (Paragraph 0091).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-13, 15 and 21 are allowable over the prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant’s amendments and arguments in reference to claim 1 have been considered and are persuasive in overcoming the prior art of record and the previous rejection set forth by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dolechek US 2006/0040086, Kogure US 2011/0159200, and Lee US 2014/0361197 disclose other known wafer supporting arrangements presented to the Applicant for their consideration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E GARFT whose telephone number is (571)270-1171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at (571)272-4797. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GARFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights