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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 8-16, 18-22, and 24-29 are pending.
In view of the amendment, filed 01/21/2026, claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn from the previous Office Action mailed 10/21/2025. New grounds of rejection are necessitated by claim amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 22 introduces “a plurality of textured features” in the “machining” step, and then recites “wherein the relieved portion comprises a plurality of textured features formed by the machining…” in the “moving” step, which the examiner believes should read “wherein the relieved portion comprises the plurality of textured features formed by the machining…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim interpretation is consistent with the prior Office Actions. The following limitation uses the word “means” and is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f): claim 15 recites “a means for directing an inert gas onto the surface at a location where a laser beam from said cold ablation laser beam impinges on the surface.” The specification provides corresponding disclosure for this limitation, including a nozzle (filed specification, [0042]-[0043], [0057]).
The examiner additionally notes that claim 8 recites that the article features “an optically flat” surface. The specification defines “optically flat” to mean flat to within a tolerance measured on the nanometer scale, e.g., by machining, polishing, and/or lapping ([0037]).
Regarding claim 8, and the limitation of the formed surface having “no visible oxidation,” the specification describes that by the use of the cold ablation laser and inert assist gas a mitigation/avoidance of oxidation is achieved ([0042], [0054]) and oxidation was not observed visually in optical microscopes or in the SEM, although atomic scale oxidation may be present ([0055]). The specification describes that this is in contrast with thermal laser and EDM, where there is an observed layer of oxidation ([0055]).
Regarding claims 8 and 15 and the term “cold ablation laser,” the specification describes “cold ablation” as using short, high energy laser pulses to quickly ablate material while minimizing local heating of the part during machining ([0041]). The specification provides acceptable ranges for cold ablation laser processing parameters in para. [0044]. Therefore, the claim term is interpreted as a laser capable of performing the “cold ablation” described, i.e., having the described parameters.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 8-16, 18-22, and 24-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Amended claim 8 introduces a plurality of surface pin mesas, each of which is optically flat, and then refers to both “the optically flat surface pin mesas” and “the optically flat surfaces,” where, in the machining step (d), the “optically flat surface pin mesas” are machined by impinging a laser beam onto “said optically flat surfaces.” Claim 8 continues to refer to said “optically flat surfaces” throughout the remainder of the claim and is unclear as to whether “said optically flat surfaces” are the same elements as “said optically flat surface pin mesas” or otherwise lack sufficient antecedent basis, as particular “surfaces” of the “surface pin mesas” were not separately introduced.
Claim 8 recites, in part (d), that “the surface of controlled roughness…is recessed or relieved relative to said optically flat surface” and then, in part (e), “thereby relieving a portion of each of said optically flat surfaces and leaving a balance of each of said optically flat surfaces unaffected to, together, form the surface of controlled roughness…” The two limitations appear to conflict, as the claim first recites that “the surface of controlled roughness” corresponds to the surface that is recessed or relieved relative to the optically flat surface(s), and thus is a different surface from the optically flat surface(s), but then specifies that both relieved portions and the unaffected optically flat surfaces together form the surface of controlled roughness. The language is unclear as to how both conditions are possible.
Claim 8 additionally recites the limitation “said optically flat surface” (singular) in the last line of part (d) and the last line of the claim. The claim introduced plural “optically flat surfaces” such that the noted limitations are unclear as to whether they refer to all or one of the optically flat surfaces.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “said optically flat surface” in line 2. Claim 8 only references plural “optically flat surfaces” such that the limitation in claim 16 is unclear as to whether it refers to all or one of the optically flat surfaces.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “said optically flat surface” (singular) throughout the claim and in the last line. The claim introduced plural “optically flat surfaces” such that the noted limitations are unclear as to whether they refer to all or one of the optically flat surfaces.
Claims 28 and 29 each recite the limitation “the optically flat surface” (singular) in the last line. Claims 8 and 22 introduced plural “optically flat surfaces” such that the noted limitations are unclear as to whether they refer to all or one of the optically flat surfaces.
The indicated dependent claims are rejected for the reasons provided above.
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(s) 8-16, 18-19, 22, and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammer et al., US 20160354864 A1, in view of Takashi, JP 2012009720 A (provided in Applicant’s IDS), O’Brien et al., US 20120103953 A1, and Cooke, US 20090284894 A1, or alternatively over Hammer et al., in view of Takashi, O’Brien et al., Kobayashi et al., JP 2001269793 A (provided in Applicant’s IDS; Espacenet translation provided 10/21/2025 referenced below), and Cooke. A machine translation of Takashi is provided and referenced below.
Regarding claim 8, Hammer discloses a method of forming a surface of controlled roughness across a plurality of surface pin mesas for handling a semiconductor wafer (manufacturing a holding plate including forming protrusions on the holding plate, Abstract; the holding plate being adapted for holding a semiconductor wafer, [0001]), said method comprising:
(a) providing an article featuring the plurality of surface pin mesas, wherein each surface pin mesa is flat (providing a disc having a plane surface 12 and burls 13, where the plane surface ultimately forms the surface pin mesas as the flat top surfaces of the burls 13, [0045], [0048], Figs. 1-2), wherein the flat surface pin mesas include a ceramic-containing material including silicon (the disc being made from SiSiC, [0045]);
(b) providing a cold ablation laser (laser ablation machine 20 comprising laser source 21, which is a pulsed laser having processing specifications for power, wavelength, pulse duration, scan speed, and repetition frequency, [0043]-[0044], [0048], Fig. 1, and which provides for “gentle” material removal, [0023], [0025], in line with the instant specification in [0044]);
(d) machining the article by impinging a laser beam from said cold ablation laser onto its flat surface (using the laser irradiation to successively remove layers from the plane surface 12, [0012], [0023], [0048], Fig. 2), whereby said laser beam machines said flat surface, thereby forming recessed or relieved surfaces ([0023], [0048], forming depressions adjacent burls 13, Fig. 2); and
(e) moving said laser beam relative to said flat surface (laser irradiation selectively follows a pattern to form the protrusions, [0023], laser source is moved relative to the holding plate, [0026], [0048]), thereby relieving a portion of said flat surface (relieving portion where material is removed, Fig. 2), and leaving a balance of said flat surface unaffected (non-machined areas, Fig. 2).
Hammer discloses laser machining the pins as set forth above but does not disclose laser machining the flat surface pin mesas to form the surface of controlled roughness that is recessed or relieved relative to the flat surfaces/pin mesas and moving the laser beam relative to each of the flat surfaces/pin mesas thereby relieving a portion of each of these and leaving a balance unaffected to, together, form the surface of controlled roughness, the surface of controlled roughness comprising a plurality of textured features formed by the machining of the plurality of surface pin mesas, wherein the plurality of textured features are in the form of a cross-hatch pattern on each of the surface pin mesas, the cross-hatch pattern comprising a first set of a plurality of grooves or channels being angled with respect to a second set of a plurality of grooves or channels.
In the analogous art of providing semiconductor wafer holders (Abstract, Technical Field), Takashi discloses laser machining recessed/relieved grooves (6b) into the flat top support surfaces (6a) of pins (6) of a wafer holder (1) thereby forming a surface of controlled roughness comprised of the machined grooves forming a plurality of textured features and a balance of flat wafer support surfaces (6a) (Figs. 3-4; p. 3, first full paragraph). Takashi describes forming the grooves using a laser that performs fine processing so that no processing distortion remains (p. 3, first full paragraph) and depicts the grooves 6b formed in a cross shape (Fig. 4, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
258
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Takashi teaches that with the grooves 6b provided on the wafer support surfaces 6a of each pin 6, the pins and the wafer are separated by the projected area of the grooves so that the contact area is reduced and the frequency of particles being sandwiched between a wafer and the wafer holder can be reduced, as well as that an effect of the wafer remaining stuck on the holder can be avoided (p. 3, second to last paragraph – p. 4, first paragraph).
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 process of Hammer to further include performing laser machining/moving as claimed on the flat surface pin mesas to form the surface of controlled roughness comprising the plurality of recessed/relieved/textured features in the form of a cross pattern on each of the plurality of surface pin mesas in order to improve the holding and releasing functions of the holding plate as taught by Takashi above.
Takashi as applied above discloses forming the cross pattern of a plurality of intersecting grooves (6b, Fig. 4) and further discloses that a shape of the grooves is not limited (p. 4, first paragraph of “Other Embodiments” section) but the combination does not specifically disclose a cross-hatch pattern comprising a first set of a plurality of grooves angled with respect to a second set of a plurality of grooves. However, a “cross-hatch” pattern of a plurality of grooves angled with respect to another plurality of grooves amounts merely to a duplication of the “cross” pattern shown by Takashi with no unexpected effect. It has been shown that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). In this case, additional intersecting grooves would provide the expected effect of more gaps in the contact area between a wafer and the corresponding support surface. Furthermore, Takashi describes that a particular form of the grooves is not critical (p. 4, first paragraph of “Other Embodiments” section). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cross pattern to be a cross-hatch pattern as claimed as a routine expedient in adjusting the groove design to the desired holding/releasing effect with a reasonable expectation of success.
Hammer is silent as to a step of (c) providing an inert gas and, in (d), directing a stream of said inert gas onto the flat surface. Hammer is silent as to a step of verifying an absence of visible oxidation on the surface, interpreted in line with the specification to mean that visual observation of the surface is performed, e.g., by imaging the surface, and does not show visible oxidation.
In the analogous art, O’Brien discloses a method of laser machining ceramic materials to achieve high quality openings in the workpiece (Abstract, [0001]). O’Brien discloses that laser processing of ceramics may result in defects such as edge roughness, thermal damage, and debris affecting quality and throughput ([0005]-[0007]). Accordingly, O’Brien teaches providing a stream of gas (Fig. 4, high velocity gas, [0023], [0036]), the gas being an inert gas (the high velocity gas being a neutral gas such as helium, argon, or nitrogen, [0036]) and directing the stream of inert gas onto a machining surface (to area on the workpiece being processed by the laser beam, [0023], [0036]) in order to reduce side effects such as a heat affected zone and reflow of melted material and to control the laser/workpiece interface environment ([0023], [0036]). O’Brien teaches that high quality openings and increased throughput of the laser processing can be obtained compared to conventional laser machining ([0040]). O’Brien discloses that observation of the cut surface is made by scanning electron microscope (Fig. 6, [0045]), where the edges are described as smooth and clean. No visible oxidation is observed.
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 laser ablation process of Hammer to include a step of providing an inert gas, directing a stream of said inert gas onto the flat surface, and verifying an absence of visible oxidation on the surface, in order to improve the quality of the machined surfaces and increase the throughput of the laser processing, as taught by O’Brien.
Assuming arguendo that Applicant disagrees that O’Brien teaches the provided/directed gas being an inert gas because O’Brien also discloses the use of other types of gas as an alternative ([0036]), the examiner notes that patents are relevant as prior art for all they contain, including alternative embodiments (MPEP 2123). Still, Kobayashi is optionally applied in addition below.
In the analogous art, Kobayashi discloses laser processing of a ceramic workpiece while mitigating processing-induced debris and defects ([0001], [0006], [0009]). Kobayashi teaches that inert gas at the machining area prevents oxidation of debris particles and the processed portion due to laser irradiation, which promotes removal of material, integrity of the processed portion, and the obtaining of a good processed surface ([0015]). Of the inert gases, Kobayashi discloses the use of helium and/or argon ([0028]-[0029]).
Accordingly, of the gases provided and directed by the combination in view of O’Brien, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify using the inert gas such as helium or argon in order to predictably realize the effect of oxidation prevention, improved debris removal, and a better processed surface as a result of the laser machining, as taught by Kobayashi.
Regarding the surface having no visible oxidation, the combination does not disclose, suggest, or depict the presence of any visible oxidation. The instant specification describes that performing the cold ablation with an inert assist gas achieves the effect of mitigating oxide formation, as the presence of the inert gas prevents oxide formation ([0042]). As such, a lack of visible oxidation is defined as the resultant level of oxidation from cold ablation in the presence of inert gas. As the prior art teaches the same process conditions including a combination of cold ablation and inert gas, the limitation directed to the corresponding characteristic is met as claimed. Since the prior art product appears to be substantially identical to the claimed product having the characteristic of having no visible oxidation, as set forth above, the burden of proving that the prior art does not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristic shifts to the Applicant. See MPEP 2112 (V).
Hammer describes the importance of planar holding surfaces for a holding plate ([0003]) and discloses the end faces of the formed protrusions span a plane carrier surface for the component to be held ([0011]). Hammer describes the initially provided disc/blank of the holding plate 11 as having a plane surface 12 ([0045], Figs. 1-2). Plane surfaces are necessarily flat and would have been understood as observably flat. However, Hammer is silent as to the surface being “optically flat,” such that it was “flat to within a tolerance measured on the nanometer scale” (as defined in the instant specification, [0037]). It is noted that this definition does not require any specific value of flatness.
In the analogous art, Cooke discloses a holding chuck for a semiconductor wafer, where a surface layer of the chuck includes a plurality of protrusions used to evenly support the wafer (Abstract, [0048]-[0050], [0063], Figs. 2-3). Cooke teaches that polished protrusion surfaces at the contact regions reduce high contact forces and that low surface roughness provides a more uniform distribution of forces across the substrate during chucking ([0054]). Cooke teaches that smoothing of the top surface to achieve surface roughness values of top surfaces of the protrusions around 0.04 µm, or 40 nm ([0075]-[0077], Figs. 9B and 10B), was known to result in improved performance by producing fewer particles in use with a semiconductor wafer substrate ([0078]).
In the case it was not necessarily present, 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 process of Hammer to specify that the planar surface of the provided article was “optically flat,” so as to ensure that the resulting top contact surfaces of the protrusions were sufficiently smooth to achieve the beneficial effect of reduced contact forces, a more uniform distribution of forces across the wafer during chucking, and reduced particles in use with the wafer, as taught by Cooke.
Regarding claim 9, modified Hammer discloses the method of claim 8, and Hammer discloses said cold ablation laser has a power in a range of 15-120 watts (the laser power being 20, 30, or 50 W, [0044]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Hammer discloses the method of claim 8, and Hammer discloses said cold ablation laser operates at a wavelength between 150-1080 nm (1060 nm, [0044]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Hammer discloses the method of claim 8, and Hammer discloses said cold ablation laser has a pulse width between 1 femtosecond and 300 nanoseconds (2-200 ns, [0044]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Hammer discloses the method of claim 8, and Hammer discloses said cold ablation laser has a repetition rate between 1-100,000 Hz (suitable range of 30-200 kHz, [0044], with a specific example of 30 kHz applied, [0048]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Hammer discloses the method of claim 8. The combination discloses the inert gas comprises a gas selected from the claimed group (O’Brien: helium, argon, [0036]). Note that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been shown to support a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 14, modified Hammer discloses the method of claim 8, and Hammer discloses said article comprises a chuck for supporting the semiconductor wafer (holding plate for holding a semiconductor wafer, [0001], [0052], Fig. 3, where a holding plate is equivalent to a chuck).
Regarding claim 15, Hammer discloses an apparatus (laser ablation machine 20, Fig. 1) for machining a surface of a metal- or ceramic-containing body (for machining a ceramic disc, [0045]), said apparatus comprising a cold ablation laser (comprising laser source 21, which is a pulsed laser having processing specifications for power, wavelength, pulse duration, scan speed, and repetition frequency, [0043]-[0044], [0048], Fig. 1, and which provides for “gentle” material removal, [0023], [0025], in line with the instant specification in [0044]).
Hammer does not disclose the apparatus includes a means for directing inert gas onto the surface at a location where the laser beam from the cold ablation laser impinges on the surface.
In the analogous art, O’Brien discloses an apparatus for laser machining ceramic materials to achieve high quality openings in the workpiece (Fig. 5) including a means for directing inert gas onto the surface at a location where the laser beam from the cold ablation laser impinges on the surface (nozzle 516, Fig. 5, [0044]). O’Brien teaches directing an inert gas (Fig. 4, high velocity gas, [0023]; the high velocity gas being a neutral gas such as helium, argon, or nitrogen, [0036]) onto a machining surface (to area on the workpiece being processed by the laser beam, [0023], [0036]) in order to reduce side effects such as a heat affected zone and reflow of melted material and to control the laser/workpiece interface environment ([0023], [0036]). O’Brien teaches that high quality openings and increased throughput of the laser processing can be obtained compared to conventional laser machining ([0040]).
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 laser ablation machine of Hammer to include a means for directing inert gas onto the surface at a location where the laser beam from the cold ablation laser impinges on the surface in order to improve the machining quality and increase the throughput of the laser processing, as taught by O’Brien.
The combination does not explicitly disclose the apparatus being configured to employ the method of claim 8. However, the method of claim 8 is rendered obvious over the combination as set forth above using the same structural components of the apparatus as present in the combination of Hammer and O’Brien and, in the case it was not necessarily present, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the cited references to specify the apparatus was configured to employ the same method in order to ensure the apparatus was capable of successfully manufacturing a holding plate with higher quality machined surfaces as set forth for claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 16, modified Hammer discloses the method of claim 8. The combination as set forth above is silent as to a characteristic width. However, a standard “crosshatch” pattern on each of the pins formed of repeating cross geometry per claim 8 would have been expected to have a regular, periodic, repeating width between grooves across the pins in establishing said crosshatch. As such, the claimed arrangement essentially corresponds to the crosshatch pattern, a duplicated cross pattern, and would have been an obvious arrangement of the intersecting grooves to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons provided above and so that the holding/releasing surfaces were generally evenly distributed across the pins as shown by Takashi (Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 18, modified Hammer discloses the method of claim 8. The combination is silent as to either set of grooves having a pitch from about 50 to about 90 microns.
Hammer discloses the end faces of the burls preferably having a diameter less than 300 or 200 microns ([0031]) and Takashi discloses a similar pin tip diameter of around 150 to 300 microns (p. 3, third full paragraph). As such, a pitch of either set of grooves formed into the surface pin mesa having a diameter in the expected range would necessarily be less than the diameter of the entire surface and thus would have been less than about 200 or 300 microns. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the range in defining suitable dimensions for a pitch/spacing of the grooves based on the disclosed pin dimensions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 19, modified Hammer discloses the method of claim 18. The combination does not specifically disclose at least one of the first and second set of the plurality of grooves are substantially parallel to one another. However, in duplicating the cross design of Takashi (Fig. 4) the simplest manner of repeating would involve retaining its general orientation such that grooves in one direction are kept aligned with the same direction and perpendicular grooves crossing the one direction are kept aligned with the perpendicular direction. As such, the claimed arrangement essentially corresponds to the duplicated cross pattern, a crosshatch pattern, and would have been an obvious arrangement of the intersecting grooves to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons provided above and so that the holding/releasing surfaces remained generally evenly distributed across the pins as shown by Takashi (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 22, Hammer discloses a method of forming a surface of controlled roughness across a plurality of surface pin mesas for handling a semiconductor wafer (manufacturing a holding plate including forming protrusions on the holding plate, Abstract; the holding plate being adapted for holding a semiconductor wafer, [0001]), said method comprising:
Providing an article featuring the plurality of surface pin mesas, wherein each surface pin mesa has a flat surface (providing a disc having a plane surface 12 and burls 13, where the plane surface ultimately forms the surface pin mesas as the flat top surfaces of the burls 13, [0045], [0048], Figs. 1-2), wherein the flat surface includes a ceramic-containing material (the disc being made from SiSiC, [0045]);
Machining the article by impinging a laser beam from a cold ablation laser (laser ablation machine 20 comprising laser source 21, which is a pulsed laser having processing specifications for power, wavelength, pulse duration, scan speed, and repetition frequency, [0043]-[0044], [0048], Fig. 1, and which provides for “gentle” material removal, [0023], [0025], in line with the instant specification in [0044]) onto its flat surface (using the laser irradiation to successively remove layers from the plane surface 12, [0012], [0023], [0048], Fig. 2), thereby forming recessed or relieved surfaces (machined surfaces recessed or relieved adjacent burls 13, Fig. 2); and
Moving said laser beam relative to said flat surface (laser irradiation selectively follows a pattern to form the protrusions, [0023], laser source is moved relative to the holding plate, [0026], [0048]), thereby relieving a portion of said flat surface (relieving portion where material is removed, Fig. 2), and leaving a balance of said flat surface unaffected (non-machined areas, Fig. 2).
Hammer discloses laser machining the pins as set forth above but does not disclose laser machining the flat surfaces of the surface pin mesas to form the surface of controlled roughness that is recessed or relieved relative to the flat surfaces/pin mesas and moving the laser beam relative to each of the flat surfaces/pin mesas thereby relieving a portion of each of these and leaving a balance unaffected wherein the relieved portion comprises a plurality of textured features formed by the machining of the flat surfaces, wherein the plurality of textured features are in the form of a cross-hatch pattern on each of the surface pin mesas, the cross-hatch pattern comprising a first set of a plurality of grooves or channels being angled with respect to a second set of a plurality of grooves or channels.
In the analogous art of providing semiconductor wafer holders (Abstract, Technical Field), Takashi discloses laser machining recessed/relieved grooves (6b) into the flat top support surfaces (6a) of pins (6) of a wafer holder (1) thereby forming a surface of controlled roughness comprised of the machined grooves forming a plurality of textured features and a balance of flat wafer support surfaces (6a) (Figs. 3-4; p. 3, first full paragraph). Takashi describes forming the grooves using a laser that performs fine processing so that no processing distortion remains (p. 3, first full paragraph) and depicts the grooves 6b formed in a cross shape (Fig. 4). Takashi teaches that with the grooves 6b provided on the wafer support surfaces 6a of each pin 6 of the wafer holder, the pins and the wafer are separated by the projected area of the grooves so that the contact area is reduced and the frequency of particles being sandwiched between a wafer and the wafer holder can be reduced, as well as that an effect of the wafer remaining stuck on the holder can be avoided (p. 3, second to last paragraph – p. 4, first paragraph).
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 process of Hammer to further include performing laser machining/moving as claimed on the flat surface pin mesas to form the surface of controlled roughness comprising the plurality of recessed/relieved/textured features in the form of a cross pattern on each of the plurality of surface pin mesas in order to improve the holding and releasing functions of the holding plate as taught by Takashi.
Takashi as applied above discloses forming the cross pattern of a plurality of intersecting grooves (6b, Fig. 4) and further discloses that a shape of the grooves is not limited (p. 4, first paragraph of “Other Embodiments” section) but the combination does not specifically disclose a cross-hatch pattern comprising a first set of a plurality of grooves angled with respect to a second set of a plurality of grooves. However, a “cross-hatch” pattern of a plurality of grooves angled with respect to another plurality of grooves amounts merely to a duplication of the “cross” pattern shown by Takashi with no unexpected effect. It has been shown that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). In this case, additional intersecting grooves would provide the expected effect of more gaps in the contact area between a wafer and the corresponding support surface. Furthermore, Takashi describes that a particular form of the grooves is not critical (p. 4, first paragraph of “Other Embodiments” section). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cross pattern to be a cross-hatch pattern as claimed as a routine expedient in adjusting the groove design to the desired holding/releasing effect with a reasonable expectation of success.
Hammer is silent as to a step of directing a stream of inert gas onto the flat surface and verifying the absence of visible oxidation on the surface.
In the analogous art, O’Brien discloses a method of laser machining ceramic materials to achieve high quality openings in the workpiece (Abstract, [0001]). O’Brien discloses that laser processing of ceramics may result in defects such as edge roughness, thermal damage, and debris affecting quality and throughput ([0005]-[0007]). Accordingly, O’Brien teaches directing a stream of gas (Fig. 4, high velocity gas, [0023], [0036]), the gas being an inert gas (the high velocity gas being a neutral gas such as helium, argon, or nitrogen, [0036]), onto a machining surface (to area on the workpiece being processed by the laser beam, [0023], [0036]) in order to reduce side effects such as a heat affected zone and reflow of melted material and to control the laser/workpiece interface environment ([0023], [0036]). O’Brien teaches that high quality openings and increased throughput of the laser processing can be obtained compared to conventional laser machining ([0040]). O’Brien discloses that observation of the cut surface is made by scanning electron microscope (Fig. 6, [0045]), where the edges are described as smooth and clean. No visible oxidation is observed.
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 laser ablation process of Hammer to include a step of directing a stream of inert gas onto the flat surface and verifying the an absence of visible oxidation on the surface, in order to improve the quality of the machined surfaces and increase the throughput of the laser processing, as taught by O’Brien.
Assuming arguendo that Applicant disagrees that O’Brien teaches the directed gas being an inert gas because O’Brien also discloses the use of other types of gas as an alternative ([0036]), the examiner notes that patents are relevant as prior art for all they contain, including alternative embodiments (MPEP 2123). Still, Kobayashi is optionally applied in addition below.
In the analogous art, Kobayashi discloses laser processing of a ceramic workpiece while mitigating processing-induced debris and defects ([0001], [0006], [0009]). Kobayashi teaches that inert gas at the machining area prevents oxidation of debris particles and the processed portion due to laser irradiation, which promotes removal of material, integrity of the processed portion, and the obtaining of a good processed surface ([0015]). Of the inert gases, Kobayashi discloses the use of helium and/or argon ([0028]-[0029]).
Accordingly, of the gases directed by the combination in view of O’Brien, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify using the inert gas such as helium or argon in order to predictably realize the effect of oxidation prevention, improved debris removal, and a better processed surface as a result of the laser machining, as taught by Kobayashi.
Regarding the surface having no visible oxidation, the combination does not disclose, suggest, or depict the presence of any visible oxidation. The instant specification describes that performing the cold ablation with an inert assist gas achieves the effect of mitigating oxide formation, as the presence of inert gas prevents oxide formation ([0042]). As such, a lack of visible oxidation is defined as the resultant level of oxidation from cold ablation in the presence of inert gas. As the prior art teaches the same process conditions including a combination of cold ablation and inert gas, the limitation directed to the corresponding characteristic is met as claimed. Since the prior art product appears to be substantially identical to the claimed product having the characteristic of having no visible oxidation, as set forth above, the burden of proving that the prior art does not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristic shifts to the Applicant. See MPEP 2112 (V).
Hammer describes the importance of planar holding surfaces for the holding plate ([0003]) and discloses the end faces of the formed protrusions span a plane carrier surface for the component to be held ([0011]). Hammer describes the initially provided disc/blank of the holding plate 11 as having a plane surface 12 ([0045], Figs. 1-2). Plane surfaces are necessarily flat and would have been understood as observably flat. However, Hammer is silent as to the surface being “optically flat,” such that it was flat to within a tolerance measured on the nanometer scale (as defined in the instant specification, [0037]). It is noted that this definition does not require any specific value of flatness.
In the analogous art, Cooke discloses a holding chuck for a semiconductor wafer, where a surface layer of the chuck includes a plurality of protrusions used to evenly support the wafer (Abstract, [0048]-[0050], [0063], Figs. 2-3). Cooke teaches that polished protrusion surfaces at the contact regions reduce high contact forces and that low surface roughness provides a more uniform distribution of forces across the substrate during chucking ([0054]). Cooke teaches that smoothing of the top surface to achieve surface roughness values of top surfaces of the protrusions around 0.04 µm, or 40 nm ([0075]-[0077], Figs. 9B and 10B), was known to result in improved performance by producing fewer particles in use with a semiconductor wafer substrate ([0078]).
In the case it was not necessarily present, 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 process of Hammer to specify that the planar surface of the provided article was “optically flat,” so as to ensure that the resulting top surfaces of the protrusions were sufficiently smooth to achieve the beneficial effect of reduced contact forces, a more uniform distribution of forces across the wafer during chucking, and reduced particles in use with the wafer, as taught by Cooke.
Regarding claim 24, modified Hammer discloses the method of claim 22, and the remaining limitation is rendered obvious as set forth above for claim 18.
Regarding claim 25, modified Hammer discloses the method of claim 24, and the remaining limitation is rendered obvious as set forth above for claim 19.
Claim(s) 20-21 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammer et al., US 20160354864 A1, in view of Takashi, JP 2012009720 A, O’Brien et al., US 20120103953 A1, optionally Kobayashi et al., JP 2001269793 A, and Cooke, US 20090284894 A1, as applied to claims 18, 22, and 24 above, further in view of Kosakai, US 20020036373 A1.
Regarding claim 20, modified Hammer discloses the method of claim 18. The combination does not disclose any of the grooves are about 10 microns wide.
In the analogous art, Kosakai discloses a wafer holding apparatus comprising a flat base with a plurality of plate-holding protrusions having upper surfaces including concavities/grooves (Abstract, [0017]-[0018], [0038], Fig. 2B). Kosakai teaches that an area ratio of the specimen holding surfaces 14 to the total area of the upper surfaces of the protrusions 5, i.e., the sum of the areas of the specimen holding surfaces 14 and the concavities 15, should be in a range of about 10 to about 90% in order to secure sufficient adhesion force while also achieving temperature uniformity of a plate shaped specimen at the same time ([0043]-[0044], Fig. 2B; the temperature uniformity achieved by the concavities, [0018]-[0019]). As the adhesion force and temperature uniformity are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said groove width of the protrusions (changing the area ratio), with said adhesion force decreasing and temperature uniformity increasing as the groove width is increased, the precise groove width would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed groove width cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the groove width in the pins of modified Hammer to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 21, modified Hammer discloses the method of claim 18. Takashi discloses grooves having a depth of 5 to 30 microns (p. 3, third full paragraph). The combination does not specifically disclose any of the grooves are about 3 microns deep.
In the analogous art, Kosakai discloses the holding apparatus introduced above and further discloses a depth of the grooves/concavities being in range of 0.1 to about 2 microns ([0046]). Kosakai discloses that as the depth becomes smaller, it becomes more difficult to improve the uniformity of the surface temperature of the specimen, and as the depth becomes larger the adhesion force tends to drop ([0046]). Accordingly, Kosakai recognizes the groove depth as a result-effective variable. As the adhesion force and temperature uniformity are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said groove depth, the precise groove depth would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed coating thickness cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the groove depth in the pins of modified Hammer to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). The applied prior art including Takashi and Kosakai support that the claimed value of 3 microns was close to the prior art ranges including depths of 5 and 2 microns, respectively, such that it would have been expected to have substantially similar properties/effects.
Regarding claim 26, modified Hammer discloses the method of claim 24, and the remaining limitation is rendered obvious as set forth above for claim 20.
Regarding claim 27, modified Hammer discloses the method of claim 22, and the remaining limitation is rendered obvious as set forth above for claim 21.
Claim(s) 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammer et al., US 20160354864 A1, in view of Takashi, JP 2012009720 A, O’Brien et al., US 20120103953 A1, optionally Kobayashi et al., JP 2001269793 A, and Cooke, US 20090284894 A1, as applied to claims 8 and 22 above, further in view of Toyama et al., US 20170361399 A1.
Regarding claims 28-29, modified Hammer discloses the method of claims 8 and 22, respectively. Hammer does not disclose the cold ablation laser comprises a mechanical measurement probe and an optical measurement camera configured to measure the surface of controlled roughness during machining of the optically flat surface.
In the analogous art, Toyama discloses a laser processing machine (Abstract, Fig. 1) including a mechanical measurement probe (touch probe 40, Fig. 1, [0025]) and an optical measurement camera for measuring the underlying surface (camera 42 providing optical sensor, Fig. 1, [0025]), in line with the present invention (Fig. 2, [0043]). Toyama teaches the devices enable precise determination of the relative position between the workpiece and the machining point of the laser beam for corresponding precise laser machining ([0039]).
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 laser device of Hammer to include a mechanical measurement probe and an optical measurement camera configured to measure the surface of controlled roughness during machining of the optically flat surface in order to provide the capability of more precise laser machining, as taught by Toyama.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 7-11, filed 01/21/2026, with respect to amendments to claims 8 and 22 and the prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Takashi to address machining of the pin mesas.
Applicant's argument (pp. 8-9) that Hammer teaches away from texturing the surface of the plurality of the burls as claimed has been fully considered but is not persuasive. The cited paragraph [0013] of Hammer describes having smooth surfaces of the ceramic material including the protrusions. Smooth surfaces are not mutually exclusive with the intentional formation of a recessed portion. Takashi as applied teaches providing the grooves in the flat surfaces by fine laser processing such that no processing distortion remains, where the formation of such grooves by fine laser processing provides a number of additional advantages such as the avoidance of distortion from particles, improved separation, etc. (pp. 3-4). The prior art does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the formation of a recessed or relieved portion to achieve the effects taught by Takashi and thus does not teach away from the combination.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights