DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on September 3, 2025. Claims 1-3 are amended; claims 4-7 are new.
The applicant contends that the cited prior art – Tanaka, principally – fails to systematically record the torques associated with different chuck tables to create a database and subsequently compare the measured torque of a given chuck table to the values within said database for means of identification. Rather, Tanaka simply compares the given chuck table to the size of a cassette (p. 7).
In response, the examiner agrees that, in a final instance, a given chuck table is compared to a given cassette, but this act of comparison necessarily presupposes the prior identification of the chuck table itself. To summarize, Tanaka uses the example of providing both 6- and 8-inch chuck tables (12A-B) to the table base (13) and suggests a plurality of detection means (40) for identifying each size of chuck table. One of these means relies upon the fact that greater torque is required to rotate the 8-inch chuck table (12B) than the 6-inch chuck table (12A), whereby the torque associated with each table is measured and these correlations between torque and size are then stored in a “memory of the control means 60.”
Thus, when the operator loads the table base with a chuck table during the initial stage of a processing operation, the torque required for its rotation is measured via the detecting means (40). Then, the size of the chuck table corresponding to this torque value is determined using the correlations between torque and size already stored in the “memory of the control means 60.” It is only at this stage, once the size of given chuck table has already been established, that a final comparison is rendered with regard to the cassette stationed at the mounting table (4). However, prior to this final comparison, Tanaka clearly discloses each step enumerated by claim 1: (a) rotating 6-inch and 8-inch chuck tables to determine their corresponding torques; (b) storing the correlation between chuck table size and torque in a storage medium; (c) measuring the torque for a given chuck table at the beginning of a processing operation; (d) comparing the measured torque of the given chuck table to the correlations stored in the storage medium; (e) determining the size of the given chuck table by virtue of this comparison. The fact that there may exist a further step, step (f), where the determined size of the given chuck table is compared to a cassette, does not nullify the validity of steps (a) through (e).
The rejections are maintained.
Priority
This application has been identified as a continuation-in-part of U.S. Application No. 16/430,709, filed on June 4, 2019, and abandoned on March 30, 2023. The priority date accorded to the claim set of the instant application, however, will be the same as its filing date: September 29, 2022. This is because the claim 1 feature of a “processor…configured to determine the chuck table” relies upon new material exclusive to the disclosure of the instant 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.
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) because the claim limitations use generic placeholders – “unit,” in this case – that are 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 limitations are:
The “treatment unit” of claim 1.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The treatment unit will be interpreted as a fluid nozzle (40) in accordance with paragraph [0031] of Applicant’s specification.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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 them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 of this title, 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka, JP 2015-170689, wherein machine translation is relied upon, in view of Mizomoto et al., US 2005/0118938.
Claims 1, 3: Tanaka discloses a treatment apparatus, comprising:
A chuck table (12) having a holding surface for mounting a workpiece (Fig. 4);
A table base (13) to which the chuck table is detachably fixed (Fig. 4);
A treatment unit (9) that cleans the workpiece held by the chuck table (p. 2);
Tanaka’s apparatus is governed by a “CPU and a memory, and includes a control unit 60 that controls the various mechanisms of the apparatus.” The examiner understands this control unit (60) as constituting the claimed “processor configured to determine the chuck table that is mounted to the table base,” as claim 1 requires.
The reference elaborates the technique of measuring the torque required to rotate chuck tables of different sizes, whereby these found correlations between torque and size are then stored “within the memory of the control means 60” (pp. 4-5). From this database, the processor can then determine the size of a given chuck table by assessing the torque required for its rotation upon the table base. If the determined chuck table does not correspond to the dimensions specified for the instant process, an alarm is triggered (p. 6).
Tanaka, however, does not specify the means for rotating the table base, nor does the reference clarify the structure of the treatment unit. Remedying both deficiencies is Mizomoto, who discloses an analogous treatment apparatus comprising a series of chuck tables rotated by a servo motor, as well as a cleaning station availing a nozzle for supplying a cleaning fluid to the substrate [0034, 0057]. It would have been obvious to integrate these features within Tanaka’s apparatus since using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 2: This limitation is tautological, as acceleration is a precondition for the phenomenon of torque, i.e., at constant velocity, there is no torque. And if there is no torque, it is not a viable means of differentiation. One of ordinary skill, then, would understand to measure torque during the phases of acceleration, deceleration, or both.
Claim 4: Mizomoto provides a cleaning nozzle (401) and a drying nozzle (96) [0040, 0057].
Claim 5: Tanaka provides a “display monitor 50 that displays a warning display.”
Claim 6: Tanaka teaches a “warning indicator lamp” for reporting a mismatch between the chuck table and cassette, whereby the examiner understands this disclosure as reading upon the claimed “alarm lamp.”
Claim 7: Tanaka discloses the use of 6- and 8-inch chuck tables.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Morikawa et al., US 2016/0172225. This reference measures the respective torque values of a stage moving mechanism corresponding to an array of carriers, whereby this correlation is stored within a memory (23) so that subsequent assessments of torque can be used to identify a specific carrier [0058].
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 extension fee 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 NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights