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 .
Amendment filed 2/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-13 and 15-20 remain pending in the present application.
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, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo US 2017/0011892 (hereinafter Guo).
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); and a plurality of actuatable ring guides (surfaces of 20 which engage with and hold 25 thereon as shown in Fig. 6) to positionally maintain the retainer ring about the chuck as the wafer is seated in 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 therebtween).
Re. Cl. 18, Guo discloses: the plurality of ring guides are pressurized (see Fig. 3a, the surfaces where 25 engage on 20 would exert pressure or a force on 25 to keep it in place on 20).
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 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).
Claims 1-2, 8-10, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekiya US 2019/0189497 (hereinafter Sekiya) in view of Weeks US 5703493 (hereinafter Weeks).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re. Cl. 1, Sekiya discloses: A leveling rim (Fig. 2a) for a semiconductor wafer (7, Fig. 2a), comprising: a thin, substantially rigid receiver ring (11a, Fig. 2a) suitable to receive a circumferential rim of the semiconductor wafer (see Fig. 2); and a containment ring (13a, Fig. 2a) removably associated with the rigid receiver ring (see Fig. 2a-b), wherein the containment ring comprises at least one flat relief portion (see annotated figure 2a) about a circumference thereof which includes a retaining feature (17, Fig. 2a) suitable to provide the removable association (Paragraph 0026, Lines 11-17).
Re. Cl. 2, Sekiya discloses: the rigid receiver ring comprises a plurality of mating features suitable to provide the removable association (magnetic attraction force discussed in Paragraph 0026, Lines 11-17).
Re. Cl. 8, Sekiya discloses: the rigid receiver ring imparts rigidity to a circumferential shape of the semiconductor wafer, and wherein the containment ring retains the semiconductor wafer within the rigid receiver ring (see Fig. 2b, the ring 11a would impart rigidity to 7 by supporting the exterior perimeter of 7).
Re. Cl. 9, Sekiya discloses: the rigidity of the circumferential shape minimizes warping of the semiconductor wafer (see Fig. 2b, by supporting 7 from above and below, warping is capable of being minimized).
Re. Cl. 10, Sekiya discloses: the warping is in a range of 1mm to 2mm (see Fig. 2b, the device is capable of preventing warping and thus maintaining it within the claimed range).
Re. Cl. 12, Sekiya discloses: the containment ring is absent from processing areas of the semiconductor wafer (see Fig. 2a-b, due to the removability of rings 13a and 11a, the device is capable of being used in the claimed intended use by removing 13a).
Re. Cl. 15, Sekiya discloses: the at least one flat relief portions provides for alignment measurements (see Fig. 2a-b, the flat portions serve to align with the flat exterior surfaces of 13 and thus the degree in which the rings correspond can be visually measured).
Re. Cl. 1, Sekiya does not disclose that the containment ring is substantially flexible. Weeks discloses a leveling rim (Fig. 1) which includes a receiver ring (10), and a containment ring (20) which sandwiches a wafer therebetween (15). Re. Cl. 1, Weeks discloses that the receiver ring is rigid (aluminum, stainless steel, etc. Col. 1, Lines 62-65) and the containment ring can be made out a substantially flexible material (Teflon, Col. 2, Lines 5-7).
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 Sekiya containment ring to be substantially flexible as disclosed by Weeks with reasonable expectation of success since Weeks states that such materials are used regularly in the semiconductor industry (Col. 1, Lines 63-68).
Claims 3-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekiya in view of Weeks as applied to claims 1-2, 8-10, 12 and 15 above, and further in view of Toyota JP 2004/022571 (hereinafter Toyota).
Re. Cls. 3 and 6, the combination of Sekiya in view of Weeks does not disclose the mating features comprise a plurality of radial slots (Cl. 3) or the retaining feature comprises a rail tab (Cl. 6). Toyota discloses a leveling rim (1, Fig. 1) for a semiconductor wafer (2, Fig. 2), comprising: a thin, substantially rigid receiver ring (10, Fig. 1-2) suitable to receive a circumferential rim of the semiconductor wafer (see Fig. 2); and a containment ring (30, Fig. 2) removably associated with the rigid receiver ring (see Fig. 1-3); the rigid receiver ring comprises a plurality of mating features (18. Fig. 1) suitable to provide the removable association (see Fig. 1, via 34). Re. Cl. 3, Toyota discloses the mating features comprise a plurality of radial slots (see 34, Fig. 1). Re. Cl. 6, Toyota discloses the retaining features comprise a plurality of radial tabs (see Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the magnetic retaining feature of Sekiya with the tab and slot retaining feature of Toyota 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)
Re. Cls. 4 and 7, Toyota discloses that the radial slots and tabs are spaced approximately every 90 degrees about the circumference of the semiconductor wafer (see Fig. 1) and therefore does not disclose that they are approximately every 60 degrees radially about the circumference. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Toyota by having the spacing between the tab/slots be approximately 60 degrees as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekiya in view of Weeks as applied to claims 1-2, 8-10, 12 and 15, and further in view of Stayt US 2019/0267276 (hereinafter Stayt).
Re. Cl. 13, the combination of Sekiya in view of Weeks does not disclose the semiconductor wafer has a thickness in a range of .06mm to.1mm. Stayt discloses a leveling rim (Fig. 1) which is used to support wafers (W) which has a thickness in the range of .06mm to .1mm (Paragraph 0027, Lines 1-5).
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 Toyota in view of Weeks device to support wafers of the thickness disclosed by Stayt with reasonable expectation of success as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that the amendments made to claim 16 are not disclosed by Guo, the Examiner disagrees. It is the Examiner’s position that Guo discloses Applicant’s claimed invention and attention is drawn above as to how Guo meets Applicant’s limitation in the Examiner’s position. Applicant's arguments do not specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Therefore, Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that the amendments made to claim 1 are not disclosed by the prior art of record, the Examiner disagrees. It is the Examiner’s position that the prior art cited above discloses Applicant’s claimed invention and attention is drawn above as to how the cited art meets Applicant’s limitation in the Examiner’s position. Applicant's arguments do not specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Therefore, Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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