DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 6, 2025 has been entered.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2017017286 by Nitta in view of JP2012084792 by Kaneko in view of JP2014150219 by Sato.
With regard to claim 1, Nitta teaches an apparatus for cleaning a wafer, wherein the apparatus comprises a vacuum source (item 34 om Figures 2-4) and a chuck table configured to support a wafer assembly, wherein the wafer assembly comprises the wafer (item 11 in Figures 1, 3, and 4), tape (item “T” in Figures 1, 3, and 4), and a frame (item “F” in Figures 1, 3, and 4; Abstract; pages 3-5 of translation). Nitta’s chuck table comprises a central portion (item 20 in Figures 2-4; pages 3-5 of translation). This central portion 20 is a portion of the chuck table, and it is centrally located within a housing (item 14 in Figure 2 of Nitta). As illustrated in Figures 3-4, a vertical conduit is positioned at the bottom of the central portion 20 and communicates with conduit 30 (in Figures 3-4) of a base (item 18 in Figures 2-4) of the chuck table, wherein this vertical conduit leads to a plurality of suction paths (one of which is labeled as 28 in Figures 3-4; pages 3-5 of translation), and wherein this vertical conduit reads on applicant’s vacuum source opening. This vertical conduit that reads on applicant’s vacuum source opening is positioned beneath the wafer, as illustrated in Figures 3-4. Horizontal suction paths (when looking at Figures 3-4, a right-side suction path is labeled as 28 in Figures 3-4 and the left-side suction path is illustrated but not labeled in Figures 3-4) extend from the vertical conduit that reads on applicant’s vacuum source opening, and these suction paths lead to suction holes (one of which is labeled as 26 in Figures 2-4, the others being unlabeled; pages 3-5 of translation). In the apparatus of Nitta, the horizontal suction paths correspond to applicant’s at least two interior channels. In the apparatus of Nitta, the suction holes (one of which is labeled as 26 in Figures 2-4, the others being unlabeled) read on applicant’s at least two suction openings. In the apparatus of Nitta, when the wafer assembly is supported by the chuck table (the chuck table supporting the wafer assembly is illustrated in Figure 4), a suction force sufficient to hold the wafer assembly to the chuck table is applied to the wafer assembly via only the suction holes of the chuck table, and this suction force is applied to only the table of the wafer assembly, beyond a perimeter of the wafer of the wafer assembly (pages 3-5 of translations). In the teachings of Nitta, said suction force is not applied directly to the wafer, and Nitta does not teach that the central portion 20 comprises a central porous suction portion.
Nitta teaches making the central portion 20 from a fluororesin or a polyacetal resin (see top of page 4 of translation), but Nitta does not explicitly teach that the central portion 20 is made of a single, unitary material. However, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04, Making Integral, 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 apparatus of Nitta by making the central portion 20 from a single, unitary material, as Nitta teaches options of making the central portion from “a fluororesin” (singular) or “a polyacetal resin” (singular) and making the central portion 20 as a single, integral piece is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.
Nitta does not explicitly teach that the vertical conduit (which is within the central portion 20, as illustrated in Figures 3-4) that reads on applicant’s vacuum source opening is within a perimeter of the wafer. The vertical conduit that reads on applicant’s vacuum source opening may very well be centrally located between the four suction holes (one of which is labeled as 26 in Figures 2, the others being shown but unlabeled) of Figure 2, but Nitta is simply silent on whether that is the case or not. However, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04, Rearrangement of Parts, 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 apparatus of Nitta by having the vertical conduit (which is within the central portion 20, as illustrated in Figures 3-4) that reads on applicant’s vacuum source opening arranged (within the central portion 20) centrally between the four suction holes (one of which is labeled as 26 in Figures 2, the others being shown but unlabeled). Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that such a central positioning of the vertical conduit that reads on applicant’s vacuum source opening would allow that vertical conduit to successfully perform its role of providing suction to the four suction holes via the horizontal suction paths that extend from that vertical conduit. In this modified apparatus of Nitta, four horizontal suction paths extend radially from the centrally-positioned vertical conduit (that reads on applicant’s vacuum source opening) to the four suction holes of Figure 2.
Nitta does not teach that the apparatus comprises a pressure sensor.
Kaneko teaches an apparatus for processing a wafer that is part of a wafer assembly comprising a frame (item F in Figures 2 and 4), the wafer (item W in Figure 4), and a tape (item T in Figure 4; pages 3-5 and 7-8 of translation). Kaneko teaches that the processed wafer is held on a chuck table (item 10A in Figures 1-4), wherein the chuck table comprises suction holes (items 16 in Figures 1-3) that apply suction to the tape when the wafer is held on the chuck table (pages 3-5 and 7-8 of translation). Kaneko’s apparatus comprises a pressure gauge (in detection unit 18 in Figure 3) in communication with the suction holes, wherein the pressure gauge is configured to detect the presence of the wafer assembly on the chuck table (pages 3-5 and 7-8 of translation). The detection unit 18 (and its pressure gauge) is connected (via flow paths 17 in Figure 3) to the suction holes (items 16 in Figures 1-3) of the chuck table (as illustrated in Figure 4a; pages 3-5 and 7-8 of translation). When the detection unit senses that the pressure of the suction holes decreases, a determination is made that the wafer assembly is properly seated (proper seating of the wafer assembly is illustrated in Figure 4A) on the chuck table and processing is permitted to begin (pages 3-5 and 7-8 of translation). When the detection unit does not sense that the pressure of the suction holes decreases, a determination is made that the wafer assembly is improperly seated (improper seating of the wafer assembly is illustrated in Figure 4B) and processing of the wafer is not permitted to begin (pages 3-5 of 7-8 of translation).
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 apparatus of Nitta such that the apparatus comprises a detection unit with a pressure gauge in communication with the four suction holes (one of which is labeled as 26 in Nitta’s Figures 2, the others being shown but unlabeled), wherein the detection unit with its pressure gauge is configured to detect the proper seating of the wafer assembly on the chuck table, wherein when the detection unit senses that the pressure of the suction openings decreases, a determination is made that the wafer assembly is properly seated on the chuck table and cleaning is permitted, and wherein when the detection unit does not sense that the pressure of the suction openings decreases, a determination is made that the wafer assembly is improperly seated and cleaning of the wafer is not permitted. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Kaneko, who teaches that such a detection unit with a pressure gauge can advantageously be used determine whether or not a wafer assembly has been properly seated on a chuck table or not such that wafer processing can be allowed or prevented, as the case may be.
The combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko does not teach that the chuck table comprises handling indentations.
Sato teaches that a chuck table component can comprise finger indentations (items 532a in Figure 2) for advantageously serving as finger recesses for aiding the handling of said component (Abstract; page 5 of translation).
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 apparatus of Nitta in view of Kaneko by having a couple finger indentations (reads on handling indentations) arranged on the outer periphery of the central portion (item 20 in Nitta’s Figures 2-4) of the chuck table such that the finger indentations extend into a periphery of the center portion. Sato teaches that a chuck table component can comprise finger indentations for advantageously serving as finger recesses for aiding the handling of said component, and the motivation for adding finger indentations would be to advantageously facilitate any needed handling of the central portion, such as for during assembly or any desired disassembly of the apparatus. The motivation for having the finger indentations arranged on the outer periphery of the central portion such that they extend into a periphery of the center portion was provided by MPEP 2144.04, Rearrangement of Parts, as the finger indentations could successfully perform their role of facilitating potential handling while at such locations.
In the combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato, the central portion 20 comprises an annular portion (item 24 in Figures 2-3 of Nitta) with an edge that has a curvature (page 4 of Nitta translation and Figure 2 of Nitta). The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “follow” as “to go, proceed, or come after”. In the combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato, each finger indentation extends into the chuck table and thus has at least one edge (an edge of this “at least one edge” is called the “depth edge” below by the examiner) that defines how far the finger indentation extends into the chuck table, and for each finger indentation, there must be a straight, imaginary arrow that can be arranged in space such that – when traveling along the direction of the arrow – a curvature of an edge of the annular portion 24 is first encountered and then an edge of the finger indentation is later encountered. Thus, in the combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato, what examiner calls the “depth edge” can be considered to “follow” (in accordance with the above Merriam-Webster dictionary definition) a curvature of an edge of the annular portion.
With regard to claim 2, in the developed combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato, the pressure gauge (reads on pressure sensor) is configured to monitor the pressure associated with the suction force on the wafer assembly.
With regard to claim 3, the combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato does not explicitly teach that the pressure gauge converts the measured pressure associated with the suction force into an electrical signal.
In the developed combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato, the pressure gauge’s data is used by the detection unit to determine if the wafer assembly is properly seated or not. In the art of communicating data, it is well known that a sensor can provide data to a device by having sensor data converted into an electrical signal that is then fed to a device (MPEP 2144.03, Official Notice). 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 apparatus of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato such that the pressure gauge converts the pressure data into an electrical signal that is provided to the rest of the detection unit such that the detection unit can determine if the wafer assembly is properly seated or not. In the apparatus of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato, the pressure data has to be somehow provided to the rest of the detection unit, and the motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of communicating data, it is well known that a sensor can provide data to a device by having sensor data converted into an electrical signal that is then fed to a device.
With regard to claim 9, in the combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato, the wafer is disposed on the tape (item T in Nitta’s Figures 1, 3, and 4), wherein the tape has a first diameter that is larger than a second diameter of the wafer (pages 3-5 of Nitta translation). In the combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato, the wafer assembly is configured such that, on a first face of the wafer assembly, a peripheral area of the tape is uncovered by the wafer and the suction force is applied to the peripheral area of the tape and not to the wafer (pages 3-5 of Nitta translation).
With regard to claim 10, in the combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato, the pressure sensor is configured to monitor the pressure associated with suction force on a portion of a second face of the wafer assembly that directly opposes a portion of the peripheral area of the first face that is uncovered by the wafer (pages 3-5 of Nitta translation).
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2017017286 by Nitta in view of JP2012084792 by Kaneko in view of JP2014150219 by Sato as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of JP2008085146 by Inoue.
With regard to claim 4, the combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato does not teach a control component that determines whether the electrical signal of the pressure gauge is below a threshold value.
Inoue teaches that when using a pressure sensor (item 34 in Figure 4) to sense the effectiveness of vacuum suction used to suck a wafer assembly (comprising wafer W, tape T, and Frame F in Figures 2-3) onto a chuck table (item 20 in Figures 2-5), the magnitude of sensed negative pressure can be compared to a magnitude of a negative pressure threshold value, wherein when the magnitude of sensed negative pressure is below the magnitude of a negative pressure threshold value, it is determined that wafer assembly is improperly arranged on the chuck table, and wherein when the magnitude of sensed negative pressure is at or above the magnitude of a negative pressure threshold value, it is determined that wafer assembly is properly arranged on the chuck table (Abstract; pages 5-9 of translation).
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 apparatus of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato such that the pressure gauge provides its electrical signal to a control component, wherein the electrical signal represents the magnitude of the sensed negative pressure, and wherein the control component then compares this magnitude of the sensed negative pressure to a magnitude of the negative pressure threshold value to see if the sensed magnitude of the negative pressure is at or above (indicating proper seating of the wafer assembly on the chuck table) or below (indicating improper seating of the wafer assembly on the chuck table) the magnitude of the negative pressure threshold value. In this combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue, the combination of pressure gauge and control component reads on applicant’s pressure sensor of claim 4. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Inoue, who teaches that when using a pressure sensor to sense the effectiveness of vacuum suction used to suck a wafer assembly onto a chuck table, the magnitude of sensed negative pressure can be compared to a magnitude of a negative pressure threshold value, wherein when the magnitude of sensed negative pressure is below the magnitude of a negative pressure threshold value, it is determined that wafer assembly is improperly arranged on the chuck table, and wherein when the magnitude of sensed negative pressure is at or above the magnitude of a negative pressure threshold value, it is determined that wafer assembly is properly arranged on the chuck table.
With regard to claim 5, in the combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue developed in the rejection of claim 4, the magnitude of the negative pressure threshold value corresponds to a minimum signal that corresponds to the wafer assembly being properly seated on the chuck table.
With regard to claim 6, in the developed combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue, the apparatus is configured to automatically prevent wafer processing when it is determined that the sensed magnitude of the negative pressure is below the magnitude of the negative pressure threshold value. In this combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue, this wafer processing is wafer cleaning (pages 3-5 of Nitta translation). The combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue does not explicitly teach that it is the control component of the pressure sensor that issues a command to prevent wafer cleaning. However, in the art of electronic controlling, it is well known that a controller can successfully control an activity by issuing an electronic command (MPEP 2144.03, Official Notice), and 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 apparatus of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue such that the control component performs the automatic preventing of wafer processing by issuing an electronic command to not perform processing of the wafer assembly when the sensed magnitude of the negative pressure is below the magnitude of the negative pressure threshold value. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of electronic controlling, it is well known that a controller can successfully control an activity by issuing an electronic command. In the combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue, a cleaning cycle can be considered to begin during the act of initially placing the to-be-cleaned wafer (as part of its wafer assembly) on the chuck table, and therefore, the cleaning cycle can be considered to be interrupted when the control component prevents cleaning due to improper seating (detected via the pressure sensor) of the wafer assembly on the chuck table.
With regard to claim 7, in the combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue, the wafer processing is wafer cleaning (pages 3-5 of Nitta translation). In the developed combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue, the apparatus is configured to initiate a cleaning cycle when it is determined that the sensed magnitude of the negative pressure is at or above the magnitude of the negative pressure threshold value. The combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue does not explicitly teach that it is the control component of the pressure sensor that issues the cleaning-cycle-initiation command. However, in the art of electronic controlling, it is well known that a controller can successfully control an activity by issuing an electronic command (MPEP 2144.03, Official Notice), and 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 apparatus of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue such that the control component issues the cleaning-cycle-initiation command when the sensed magnitude of the negative pressure is at or above the magnitude of the negative pressure threshold value. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of electronic controlling, it is well known that a controller can successfully control an activity by issuing an electronic command.
With regard to claim 8, in the combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue, the wafer processing is wafer cleaning (pages 3-5 of Nitta translation). In the combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue, the apparatus is configured to continue a cleaning cycle (a cleaning cycle that begins when a wafer assembly is loaded onto the chuck table) when it is determined that the sensed magnitude of the negative pressure is at or above the magnitude of the negative pressure threshold value. The combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue does not explicitly teach that it is the control component of the pressure sensor that issues the cleaning-cycle-continuation command. However, in the art of electronic controlling, it is well known that a controller can successfully control an activity by issuing an electronic command (MPEP 2144.03, Official Notice), and 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 apparatus of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue such that the control component issues the cleaning-cycle-continuation command when the sensed magnitude of the negative pressure is at or above the magnitude of the negative pressure threshold value. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of electronic controlling, it is well known that a controller can successfully control an activity by issuing an electronic command. In this combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue used to reject claim 8, a cleaning cycle is considered to comprise loading the wafer assembly onto the chuck table and then clean the wafer while the wafer is on the chuck table, and thus the control component’s command to clean the wafer is a command to continue a cleaning cycle.
Claims 21-23, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2017017286 by Nitta in view of JP2012084792 by Kaneko in view of JP2014150219 by Sato.
With regard to claim 21, Nitta teaches an apparatus for cleaning a wafer, wherein the apparatus comprises a vacuum source (item 34 om Figures 2-4) and a chuck table configured to support a wafer assembly, wherein the wafer assembly comprises the wafer (item 11 in Figures 1, 3, and 4), tape (item “T” in Figures 1, 3, and 4), and a frame (item “F” in Figures 1, 3, and 4; Abstract; pages 3-5 of translation). Nitta’s chuck table comprises a central portion (item 20 in Figures 2-4; pages 3-5 of translation). This central portion 20 is a portion of the chuck table, and it is centrally located within a housing (item 14 in Figure 2 of Nitta). As illustrated in Figures 3-4, a vertical conduit is positioned at the bottom of the central portion 20 and communicates with conduit 30 (in Figures 3-4) of a base (item 18 in Figures 2-4) of the chuck table, wherein this vertical conduit leads to a plurality of horizontal suction paths (one of which is labeled as 28 in Figures 3-4; pages 3-5 of translation) that are illustrated (in Figures 3 and 4) as extending parallel to a top surface of the chuck table, and wherein this vertical conduit reads on applicant’s vacuum source opening. This vertical conduit that reads on applicant’s vacuum source opening is positioned beneath the wafer, as illustrated in Figures 3-4. Horizontal suction paths (when looking at Figures 3-4, a right-side suction path is labeled as 28 in Figures 3-4 and the left-side suction path is illustrated but not labeled in Figures 3-4) extend from the vertical conduit that reads on applicant’s vacuum source opening, and these suction paths lead to suction holes (one of which is labeled as 26 in Figures 2-4, the others being unlabeled; pages 3-5 of translation). In the apparatus of Nitta, the horizontal suction paths correspond to applicant’s at least two interior channels. In the apparatus of Nitta, the suction holes (one of which is labeled as 26 in Figures 2-4, the others being unlabeled) read on applicant’s at least two suction openings. In the apparatus of Nitta, when the wafer assembly is supported by the chuck table (the chuck table supporting the wafer assembly is illustrated in Figure 4), a suction force sufficient to hold the wafer assembly to the chuck table is applied to the wafer assembly via only the suction holes of the chuck table, and this suction force is applied to only the table of the wafer assembly, beyond a perimeter of the wafer of the wafer assembly (pages 3-5 of translations). In the teachings of Nitta, said suction force is not applied directly to the wafer, and Nitta does not teach that the central portion 20 comprises a central porous suction portion.
Nitta teaches making the central portion 20 from a fluororesin or a polyacetal resin (see top of page 4 of translation), but Nitta does not explicitly teach that the central portion 20 is made of a single, unitary material. However, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04, Making Integral, 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 apparatus of Nitta by making the central portion 20 from a single, unitary material, as Nitta teaches options of making the central portion from “a fluororesin” (singular) or “a polyacetal resin” (singular) and making the central portion 20 as a single, integral piece is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.
Nitta does not explicitly teach that the vertical conduit (which is within the central portion 20, as illustrated in Figures 3-4) that reads on applicant’s vacuum source opening is within a perimeter of the wafer. The vertical conduit that reads on applicant’s vacuum source opening may very well be centrally located between the four suction holes (one of which is labeled as 26 in Figures 2, the others being shown but unlabeled) of Figure 2, but Nitta is simply silent on whether that is the case or not. However, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04, Rearrangement of Parts, 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 apparatus of Nitta by having the vertical conduit (which is within the central portion 20, as illustrated in Figures 3-4) that reads on applicant’s vacuum source opening arranged (within the central portion 20) centrally between the four suction holes (one of which is labeled as 26 in Figures 2, the others being shown but unlabeled). Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that such a central positioning of the vertical conduit that reads on applicant’s vacuum source opening would allow that vertical conduit to successfully perform its role of providing suction to the four suction holes via the suction paths that extend from that vertical conduit.
As discussed, the two horizontal suction paths (one of which is labeled as 28 in Figures 3-4; pages 3-5 of translation) that are illustrated in Figures 3 and 4 are illustrated as extending parallel to a top surface of the chuck table. Nitta does not explicitly teach that all of the suction paths (there are four suction holes that need to communicate with the vertical conduit that reads on applicant’s vacuum source opening) extend parallel to a top surface of the chuck table, as Nitta’s Figures 3-4 only illustrates two such suction paths. However, since Nitta’s Figures 3 and 4 suggest that a suction path extending horizontally and parallel to a top surface of the chuck table can successfully perform its role of providing suction (from the vertical conduit that reads on applicant’s vacuum source opening) to a suction hole, 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 apparatus of Nitta such that each of the four suction holes is provided with suction by its own dedicated suction path that extends horizontally and parallel to a top surface of the chuck table, as Nitta’s Figures 3 and 4 suggests that a suction path extending horizontally and parallel to a top surface of the chuck table can successfully perform the suction-providing role.
Nitta does not teach that the apparatus comprises a sensor.
Kaneko teaches an apparatus for processing a wafer that is part of a wafer assembly comprising a frame (item F in Figures 2 and 4), the wafer (item W in Figure 4), and a tape (item T in Figure 4; pages 3-5 and 7-8 of translation). Kaneko teaches that the processed wafer is held on a chuck table (item 10A in Figures 1-4), wherein the chuck table comprises suction holes (items 16 in Figures 1-3) that apply suction to the tape when the wafer is held on the chuck table (pages 3-5 and 7-8 of translation). Kaneko’s apparatus comprises a pressure gauge (in detection unit 18 in Figure 3) in communication with the suction holes, wherein the pressure gauge is configured to detect the presence of the wafer assembly on the chuck table (pages 3-5 and 7-8 of translation). The detection unit 18 (and its pressure gauge) is connected (via flow paths 17 in Figure 3) to the suction holes (items 16 in Figures 1-3) of the chuck table (as illustrated in Figure 4a; pages 3-5 and 7-8 of translation). When the detection unit senses that the pressure of the suction holes decreases, a determination is made that the wafer assembly is properly seated (proper seating of the wafer assembly is illustrated in Figure 4A) on the chuck table and processing is permitted to begin (pages 3-5 and 7-8 of translation). When the detection unit does not sense that the pressure of the suction holes decreases, a determination is made that the wafer assembly is improperly seated (improper seating of the wafer assembly is illustrated in Figure 4B) and processing of the wafer is not permitted to begin (pages 3-5 of 7-8 of translation).
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 apparatus of Nitta such that the apparatus comprises a detection unit with a pressure gauge in communication with the four suction holes (one of which is labeled as 26 in Nitta’s Figures 2, the others being shown but unlabeled), wherein the detection unit with its pressure gauge is configured to detect the proper seating of the wafer assembly on the chuck table, wherein when the detection unit senses that the pressure of the suction openings decreases, a determination is made that the wafer assembly is properly seated on the chuck table and cleaning is permitted, and wherein when the detection unit does not sense that the pressure of the suction openings decreases, a determination is made that the wafer assembly is improperly seated and cleaning of the wafer is not permitted. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Kaneko, who teaches that such a detection unit with a pressure gauge can advantageously be used determine whether or not a wafer assembly has been properly seated on a chuck table or not such that wafer processing can be allowed or prevented, as the case may be.
The combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko does not teach that the chuck table comprises handling indentations.
Sato teaches that a chuck table component can comprise finger indentations (items 532a in Figure 2) for advantageously serving as finger recesses for aiding the handling of said component (Abstract; page 5 of translation).
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 apparatus of Nitta in view of Kaneko by having a couple finger indentations (reads on handling indentations) arranged on the outer periphery of the central portion (item 20 in Nitta’s Figures 2-4) of the chuck table such that the finger indentations extend into a periphery of the center portion. Sato teaches that a chuck table component can comprise finger indentations for advantageously serving as finger recesses for aiding the handling of said component, and the motivation for adding finger indentations would be to advantageously facilitate any needed handling of the central portion, such as for during assembly or any desired disassembly of the apparatus. The motivation for having the finger indentations arranged on the outer periphery of the central portion such that they extend into a periphery of the center portion was provided by MPEP 2144.04, Rearrangement of Parts, as the finger indentations could successfully perform their role of facilitating potential handling while at such locations. In this combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato, since the finger indentations are arranged along the outer periphery of the central portion (which has curvature see Figure 2 of Nitta), they are considered to follow a curvature of an edge of the central portion.
In the combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato, the central portion 20 comprises an annular portion (item 24 in Figures 2-3 of Nitta) with an edge that has a curvature (page 4 of Nitta translation and Figure 2 of Nitta). The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “follow” as “to go, proceed, or come after”. In the combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato, each finger indentation extends into the chuck table and thus has at least one edge (an edge of this “at least one edge” is called the “depth edge” below by the examiner) that defines how far the finger indentation extends into the chuck table, and for each finger indentation, there must be a straight, imaginary arrow that can be arranged in space such that – when traveling along the direction of the arrow – a curvature of an edge of the annular portion 24 is first encountered and then an edge of the finger indentation is later encountered. Thus, in the combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato, what examiner calls the “depth edge” can be considered to “follow” (in accordance with the above Merriam-Webster dictionary definition) a curvature of an edge of the annular portion.
With regard to claim 22, in the developed combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato, the pressure gauge (reads on pressure sensor) is configured to monitor the pressure associated with the suction force on the wafer assembly.
With regard to claim 23, the combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato does not explicitly teach that the pressure gauge converts the measured pressure associated with the suction force into an electrical signal.
In the developed combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato, the pressure gauge’s data is used by the detection unit to determine if the wafer assembly is properly seated or not. In the art of communicating data, it is well known that a sensor can provide data to a device by having sensor data converted into an electrical signal that is then fed to a device (MPEP 2144.03, Official Notice). 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 apparatus of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato such that the pressure gauge converts the pressure data into an electrical signal that is provided to the rest of the detection unit such that the detection unit can determine if the wafer assembly is properly seated or not. In the apparatus of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato, the pressure data has to be somehow provided to the rest of the detection unit, and the motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of communicating data, it is well known that a sensor can provide data to a device by having sensor data converted into an electrical signal that is then fed to a device.
With regard to claim 29, in the combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato, the wafer is disposed on the tape (item T in Nitta’s Figures 1, 3, and 4), wherein the tape has a first diameter that is larger than a second diameter of the wafer (pages 3-5 of Nitta translation). In the combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato, the wafer assembly is configured such that, on a first face of the wafer assembly, a peripheral area of the tape is uncovered by the wafer and the suction force is applied to the peripheral area of the tape and not to the wafer (pages 3-5 of Nitta translation).
With regard to claim 30, in the combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato, the pressure sensor is configured to monitor the pressure associated with suction force on a portion of a second face of the wafer assembly that directly opposes a portion of the peripheral area of the first face that is uncovered by the wafer (pages 3-5 of Nitta translation).
Claims 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2017017286 by Nitta in view of JP2012084792 by Kaneko in view of JP2014150219 by Sato as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of JP2008085146 by Inoue.
With regard to claim 24, the combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato does not teach a control component that determines whether the electrical signal of the pressure gauge is below a threshold value.
Inoue teaches that when using a pressure sensor (item 34 in Figure 4) to sense the effectiveness of vacuum suction used to suck a wafer assembly (comprising wafer W, tape T, and Frame F in Figures 2-3) onto a chuck table (item 20 in Figures 2-5), the magnitude of sensed negative pressure can be compared to a magnitude of a negative pressure threshold value, wherein when the magnitude of sensed negative pressure is below the magnitude of a negative pressure threshold value, it is determined that wafer assembly is improperly arranged on the chuck table, and wherein when the magnitude of sensed negative pressure is at or above the magnitude of a negative pressure threshold value, it is determined that wafer assembly is properly arranged on the chuck table (Abstract; pages 5-9 of translation).
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 apparatus of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato such that the pressure gauge provides its electrical signal to a control component, wherein the electrical signal represents the magnitude of the sensed negative pressure, and wherein the control component then compares this magnitude of the sensed negative pressure to a magnitude of the negative pressure threshold value to see if the sensed magnitude of the negative pressure is at or above (indicating proper seating of the wafer assembly on the chuck table) or below (indicating improper seating of the wafer assembly on the chuck table) the magnitude of the negative pressure threshold value. In this combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue, the combination of pressure gauge and control component reads on applicant’s pressure sensor of claim 24. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Inoue, who teaches that when using a pressure sensor to sense the effectiveness of vacuum suction used to suck a wafer assembly onto a chuck table, the magnitude of sensed negative pressure can be compared to a magnitude of a negative pressure threshold value, wherein when the magnitude of sensed negative pressure is below the magnitude of a negative pressure threshold value, it is determined that wafer assembly is improperly arranged on the chuck table, and wherein when the magnitude of sensed negative pressure is at or above the magnitude of a negative pressure threshold value, it is determined that wafer assembly is properly arranged on the chuck table.
With regard to claim 25, in the combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue developed in the rejection of claim 24, the magnitude of the negative pressure threshold value corresponds to a minimum signal that corresponds to the wafer assembly being properly seated on the chuck table.
With regard to claim 26, in the developed combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue, the apparatus is configured to automatically prevent wafer processing when it is determined that the sensed magnitude of the negative pressure is below the magnitude of the negative pressure threshold value. In this combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue, this wafer processing is wafer cleaning (pages 3-5 of Nitta translation). The combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue does not explicitly teach that it is the control component of the pressure sensor that issues a command to prevent wafer cleaning. However, in the art of electronic controlling, it is well known that a controller can successfully control an activity by issuing an electronic command (MPEP 2144.03, Official Notice), and 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 apparatus of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue such that the control component performs the automatic preventing of wafer processing by issuing an electronic command to not perform processing of the wafer assembly when the sensed magnitude of the negative pressure is below the magnitude of the negative pressure threshold value. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of electronic controlling, it is well known that a controller can successfully control an activity by issuing an electronic command. In the combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue, a cleaning cycle can be considered to begin during the act of initially placing the to-be-cleaned wafer (as part of its wafer assembly) on the chuck table, and therefore, the cleaning cycle can be considered to be interrupted when the control component prevents cleaning due to improper seating (detected via the pressure sensor) of the wafer assembly on the chuck table.
With regard to claim 27, in the combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue, the wafer processing is wafer cleaning (pages 3-5 of Nitta translation). In the developed combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue, the apparatus is configured to initiate a cleaning cycle when it is determined that the sensed magnitude of the negative pressure is at or above the magnitude of the negative pressure threshold value. The combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue does not explicitly teach that it is the control component of the pressure sensor that issues the cleaning-cycle-initiation command. However, in the art of electronic controlling, it is well known that a controller can successfully control an activity by issuing an electronic command (MPEP 2144.03, Official Notice), and 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 apparatus of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue such that the control component issues the cleaning-cycle-initiation command when the sensed magnitude of the negative pressure is at or above the magnitude of the negative pressure threshold value. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of electronic controlling, it is well known that a controller can successfully control an activity by issuing an electronic command.
With regard to claim 28, in the combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue, the wafer processing is wafer cleaning (pages 3-5 of Nitta translation). In the combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue, the apparatus is configured to continue a cleaning cycle (a cleaning cycle that begins when a wafer assembly is loaded onto the chuck table) when it is determined that the sensed magnitude of the negative pressure is at or above the magnitude of the negative pressure threshold value. The combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue does not explicitly teach that it is the control component of the pressure sensor that issues the cleaning-cycle-continuation command. However, in the art of electronic controlling, it is well known that a controller can successfully control an activity by issuing an electronic command (MPEP 2144.03, Official Notice), and 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 apparatus of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue such that the control component issues the cleaning-cycle-continuation command when the sensed magnitude of the negative pressure is at or above the magnitude of the negative pressure threshold value. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of electronic controlling, it is well known that a controller can successfully control an activity by issuing an electronic command. In this combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato in view of Inoue used to reject claim 28, a cleaning cycle is considered to comprise loading the wafer assembly onto the chuck table and then clean the wafer while the wafer is on the chuck table, and thus the control component’s command to clean the wafer is a command to continue a cleaning cycle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 6, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claim 1, applicant points out that Sato’s “items 532a do not extend in a peripheral portion of a chuck table”. Applicant points out Sato’s “items 532a do not each have an edge that defines how far the handling indentation extends into the chuck table and that follows curvature of an edge of the central portion of the chuck table”. In the above rejections of claims 1 and 21, the examiner articulates in detail how the Sato refence is used to modify the combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko. Sato alone does not teach applicant’s invention, but the examiner’s developed combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko in view of Sato does render applicant’s independent claims obvious. For example, in the examiner’s rejection of claim 1, the examiner articulates the following:
The combination of Nitta in view of Kaneko does not teach that the chuck table comprises handling indentations.
Sato teaches that a chuck table component can comprise finger indentations (items 532a in Figure 2) for advantageously serving as finger recesses for aiding the handling of said component (Abstract; page 5 of translation).
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 apparatus of Nitta in view of Kaneko by having a couple finger indentations (reads on handling indentations) arranged on the outer periphery of the central portion (item 20 in Nitta’s Figures 2-4) of the chuck table such that the finger indentations extend into a periphery of the center portion. Sato teaches that a chuck table component can comprise finger indentations for advantageous