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 Amendments
The amendments filed January 16, 2026 have been entered. Accordingly, 1-5 and 9-26 are currently pending and have been examined. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 1 and 13. Claims 2-4, 14, and 16-20 are withdrawn. Claims 6-8 are cancelled by applicant. The previous 103 rejections has been modified due to applicant’s amendments. For the reason(s) set forth below, applicant’s arguments have not been found persuasive. The action is Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 12-13, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiba (JP 2020185615) in view of Ellis (US Pub. No. 2018/0166314).
Regarding claim 1, Chiba discloses: a vacuum table (Figures 1-19 and see also paragraph 0012) comprising:
a vacuum plate (element 4) having suction cup recesses (element 43 and see also paragraph 0014) on a top surface (element 4t/41 and see figure 3);
a plurality of suction cups (element 6) disposed on the top surface of the vacuum plate (see figure 3) and having a bellows shape (see figure 4 and see also paragraph 0010 where he prior discloses “bellows portion” (element 65) of the plurality of suction cups (element 6)), wherein the suction cups are disposed in the suction cup recesses (see figures 2 and 5 showing portions of suction cups (element 6) disposed in the suction cup recesses (element 43)), wherein the plurality of suction cups protrude from the top surface of the vacuum plate in an uncompressed state (see figure 5 showing a portion of the plurality of suction cups (element 6) protruding (phantom lines ) from the top surface (element 4t/41) of the vacuum plate (element 4) in an uncompressed state) and are substantially coplanar with the top surface of the vacuum plate in a compressed state (see figure 5 showing a portion of the plurality of suction cups (element 6) in a compressed state (solid lines) and having portions being coplanar with the top surface (element 4t/41) of the vacuum plate (element 4)),
wherein the plurality of suction cups comprises:
a first set of suction cups (see figure 3 annotated below Detail A) arranged proximal to edges of the top surface of the vacuum plate (see figure 3 annotated below of the first set of the section cups arranged to the edges (Detail B) of the top surface (element 4t/41) of the vacuum plate), wherein the first set of suction cups are arranged parallel to each edge of the top surface of the vacuum plate (see figure 3 annotated figure below showing a tangent line passing a portion of each of the first set of suction cups (Detail A) and being arranged parallel to each edge (Detail B) of the top surface (element 4t/41) of the vacuum plate); and
a second set of suction cups (see figure 3 annotated below Detail C) arranged proximal to four corners of the top surface of the vacuum plate (see paragraph 0013 where the prior art discloses element 4 (vacuum plate) has “a rectangular shape” and see also figure 3 annotated below showing four corners having at least one of the second set of suction cups (Detail C) arranged in their respective corners of the top surface (element 4t/41) of the vacuum plate), wherein the second set of suction cups are arranged radially symmetrical in the four corners of the top surface of the vacuum plate (see figure 3 annotated figure below showing portions of the second set of suction cups (Detail C) arranged radially symmetrical in the corners of the top surface (element 4t/41) of the vacuum plate); and
at least one vacuum source (see paragraph 0022 where the prior art discloses “a negative vacuum source (not shown)”) in fluid communication with the plurality of suction cups (see paragraph 0022);
wherein the at least one vacuum source is configured to apply negative pressure to compress the plurality of suction cups into the compressed state (see paragraph 0022 and see also figure 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
1031
1216
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Chiba appears to be silent wherein the vacuum plate also includes openings in the top surface wherein the suction cup recesses are radially outward of the openings, wherein the at least one vacuum source in fluid communication with the openings of the vacuum plate and the plurality of suction cups, and wherein the at least one vacuum sources is configured to apply negative pressure through the openings.
Ellis is also concern in providing a vacuum table (Figures 1A-1B, 3A-3B, and 8A-9B element 20 and see also paragraph 0046) comprising a vacuum plate (element 50) with suction cup recesses (element 80 and see also paragraph 0072) and a top surface (element 52), a plurality of suction cups (elements 100/110) disposed on the top surface of the vacuum plate (see figure 8A), at least one vacuum source (element 70 and see also paragraph 0047), wherein the vacuum plate also includes openings (element 60) in the top surface (see figure 1A),wherein the suction cup recesses are radially outward of the openings (see figure 3A-3B showing portions of the suction cup recesses (element 80) being radial outward from portions of the openings (element 60)), wherein the at least one vacuum source in fluid communication with the openings of the vacuum plate (see paragraphs 0047 and 0073-0074 where the prior art discloses element 70 (vacuum source is connected to the openings (element 60) and plurality of suction cups (element 110) via element 66), and the plurality of suction cups, and wherein the at least one vacuum sources is configured to apply negative pressure through the openings (see paragraph 0047).
It would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chiba with the teaching of Ellis to provide wherein the vacuum plate also includes openings in the top surface wherein the suction cup recesses are radially outward of the openings, wherein the at least one vacuum source in fluid communication with the openings of the vacuum plate and the plurality of suction cups, and wherein the at least one vacuum sources is configured to apply negative pressure through the openings. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having additional openings on the top surface for providing suction would necessarily provide the predictable result of providing additional suction, thus increasing securement and preventing the workpiece from falling off during operations.
Regarding claim 5, Chiba modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 1 and further discloses the plurality of suction cups (element 6) protruding (phantom lines in figure 5) from the top surface (element 4t/41) of the vacuum plate (element 4), but appears to be silent wherein the plurality of suction cups protrude at least 6 mm from the top surface of the vacuum plate in the uncompressed state.
Ellis is also concern in providing a vacuum table (Figures 1A-1B and 8A-9B element 20 and see also paragraph 0046) comprising a vacuum plate (element 50) with a top surface (element 52), a plurality of suction cups (elements 100/110) disposed on the top surface of the vacuum plate (see figure 8A), wherein the plurality of suction cups protrude from the top surface of the vacuum plate in an uncompressed state (see figure 8a showing a portion of the plurality of suction cups (element 110) protrude (Element H) from the top surface (element 52) in an uncompressed state), and wherein the plurality of suction cups protrude at least 6 mm from the top surface of the vacuum plate in the uncompressed state (see figure 8a showing the plurality of suction cups (element 110) protruding a top surface (element H) and see also paragraph 0006 where the prior art discloses element H extends above the upper surface of the body and is in the range of “2 mm≤H≤6 mm”, thus protruding at least 6mm).
It would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chiba with the teaching of Ellis to provide wherein the plurality of suction cups protrude at least 6 mm from the top surface of the vacuum plate in the uncompressed state. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a desired protrusion of the plurality of suction cups including the claimed range would necessarily facilitate chucking warped wafer by reaching up from upper surface of chuck by the height and pneumatically engaging respective portions of backside of the wafer before it comes under the influence of the vacuum features as disclosed by Ellis (see paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 12, Chiba modified discloses: the vacuum table of claim 1, wherein the openings are defined between surface features (elements LP/58/64 of “prior art of Ellis”) on the top surface of vacuum plate (see figure 1A showing the openings (element 60) defined between multiple different surface features (element LP/58/64) on the top surface of the vacuum plate of “prior art of Ellis”).
Regarding claim 13, Chiba discloses: a method (Figures 1-19 and see also paragraph 0012) of flattening a substrate (element 100), comprising:
providing a vacuum table (see paragraph 0013), comprising:
a vacuum plate (element 4) having suction cup recesses (element 43 and see also paragraph 0014) a top surface (element 4t/41 and see figure 5);
a plurality of suction cups (element 6) disposed on the top surface of the vacuum plate (see figure 3) and having a bellows shape (see figure 4 and see also paragraph 0010 where he prior discloses “bellows portion” (element 65) of the plurality of suction cups (element 6)), wherein the suction cups are disposed in the suction cup recesses (see figures 2 and 5 showing portions of suction cups (element 6) disposed in the suction cup recesses (element 43)), wherein the plurality of suction cups protrude from the top surface of the vacuum plate in an uncompressed state (see figure 5 showing a portion of the plurality of suction cups (element 6) protruding (phantom lines ) from the top surface (element 4t/41) of the vacuum plate (element 4) in an uncompressed state) and are substantially coplanar with the top surface of the vacuum plate in a compressed state (see figure 5 showing a portion of the plurality of suction cups (element 6) in a compressed state (solid lines) and having portions being coplanar with the top surface (element 4t/41) of the vacuum plate (element 4)), wherein the plurality of suction cups comprises:
a first set of suction cups (see figure 3 annotated below Detail A) arranged proximal to edges of the top surface of the vacuum plate (see figure 3 annotated below of the first set of the section cups arranged to the edges (Detail B) of the top surface (element 4t/41) of the vacuum plate), wherein the first set of suction cups are arranged parallel to each edge of the top surface of the vacuum plate (see figure 3 annotated figure below showing a tangent line passing a portion of each of the first set of suction cups (Detail A) and being arranged parallel to each edge (Detail B) of the top surface (element 4t/41) of the vacuum plate); and
a second set of suction cups (see figure 3 annotated below Detail C) arranged proximal to four corners of the top surface of the vacuum plate (see paragraph 0013 where the prior art discloses element 4 (vacuum plate) has “a rectangular shape” and see also figure 3 annotated below showing four corners having at least one of the second set of suction cups (Detail C) arranged in their respective corners of the top surface (element 4t/41) of the vacuum plate), wherein the second set of suction cups are arranged radially symmetrical in the four corners of the top surface of the vacuum plate (see figure 3 annotated figure below showing portions of the second set of suction cups (Detail C) arranged radially symmetrical in the corners of the top surface (element 4t/41) of the vacuum plate); and
at least one vacuum source (see paragraph 0022 where the prior art discloses “a negative vacuum source (not shown)”) in fluid communication with the plurality of suction cups (see paragraph 0022);
disposing the substrate on the top surface of the vacuum plate in contact with the plurality of suction cups (see figures 16-18); and
controlling the at least one vacuum source to apply negative pressure in a space between the substrate and the top surface of the vacuum plate and in a space between the substrate and the plurality of suction cups (see paragraphs 0031 and 0050-0054), thereby compressing the plurality of suction cups into the compressed state and flattening the substrate against at least part of the top surface of the vacuum plate (see figures 16-18 showing the compressing process of compressing the plurality of suction cups into the compressed state and flattening the substrate against at least part of the top surface of the vacuum plate (see figure 16 and 18)).
PNG
media_image1.png
1031
1216
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Chiba appears to be silent wherein the vacuum plate also includes openings in the top surface, wherein the suction cup recesses are radially outward of the openings, wherein the at least one vacuum source in fluid communication with the openings of the vacuum plate and the plurality of suction cups, and controlling the at least one vacuum source to apply negative pressure in a space between the substrate and the top surface of the vacuum plate through the openings.
Ellis is also concern in providing a vacuum table (Figures 1A-1B, 3A-3B, and 8A-9B element 20 and see also paragraph 0046) comprising a vacuum plate (element 50) with suction cup recesses (element 80 and see also paragraph 0072) and a top surface (element 52), a plurality of suction cups (elements 100/110) disposed on the top surface of the vacuum plate (see figure 8A), at least one vacuum source (element 70 and see also paragraph 0047), wherein the vacuum plate also includes openings (element 60) in the top surface (see figure 1A), wherein the suction cup recesses are radially outward of the openings (see figure 3A-3B showing portions of the suction cup recesses (element 80) being radial outward from portions of the openings (element 60)), wherein the at least one vacuum source in fluid communication with the openings of the vacuum plate and the plurality of suction cups (see paragraphs 0047 and 0073-0074 where the prior art discloses element 70 (vacuum source is connected to the openings (element 60) and plurality of suction cups (element 110) via element 66), and the plurality of suction cups, and controlling the at least one vacuum source to apply negative pressure in a space between the substrate and the top surface of the vacuum plate through the openings (see paragraph 0047).
It would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chiba with the teaching of Ellis to provide wherein the vacuum plate also includes openings in the top surface, wherein the suction cup recesses are radially outward of the openings, wherein the at least one vacuum source in fluid communication with the openings of the vacuum plate and the plurality of suction cups, and controlling the at least one vacuum source to apply negative pressure in a space between the substrate and the top surface of the vacuum plate through the openings. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having additional openings on the top surface for providing suction would necessarily provide the predictable result of providing additional suction, thus increasing securement and preventing the workpiece from falling off during operations.
Regarding claim 23, Chiba modified discloses: the vacuum table of claim 1, wherein the suction cups are only placed at a perimeter of the vacuum plate (see figure 3 annotated below showing the selected suction cups of the first/second set of suction cups (Detail A/C) being only placed at a perimeter (outer boundary) of the vacuum plate (element 4)) .
PNG
media_image1.png
1031
1216
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Chiba modified discloses: the method of claim 13, wherein the suction cups are only placed at a perimeter of the vacuum plate (see figure 3 annotated above showing the selected suction cups of the first/second set of suction cups (Detail A/C) being only placed at a perimeter (outer boundary) of the vacuum plate (element 4)) .
Regarding claim 25, Chiba modified discloses: the vacuum table of claim 1, wherein the suction cups are only in the suction cup recesses (see figure 2 showing the suction cups (element 6) being only in the suction cup recesses (element 43)).
Regarding claim 26, Chiba modified discloses: the method of claim 13, wherein the suction cups are only in the suction cup recesses (see figure 2 showing the suction cups (element 6) being only in the suction cup recesses (element 43)).
Claim 9-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiba (JP 2020185615) in view of Ellis (US Pub. No. 2018/0166314) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Verstreken (US Patent No. 2022/0130708).
Regarding claim 9, Chiba modified discloses: the vacuum table of claim 1, wherein the at least one vacuum source comprises: a first vacuum source (element 70 and see also paragraph 0047 of “prior art of Ellis”) in fluid communication with the openings of the vacuum plate (see figure 1B (see prior art of Ellis) showing the first vacuum source (element 70) in fluid communication with the openings (element 60) via element 66).
However, Chiba modified appears to be silent comprising a second vacuum source in fluid communication with the plurality of suction cups; wherein the second vacuum source is configured to apply negative pressure to compress the plurality of suction cups into the compressed state.
Verstreken is also concern in providing a vacuum table (Figures 6-8 and see also paragraphs 0053-0054) comprising a vacuum plate (element 20) having opening (element 23 ) on a top surface (element 20a), a plurality of suction cups (element 80) disposed on the top surface of the vacuum plate (see figure 6), at least one vacuum source (elements 12/84), wherein the at least one vacuum source comprises: a first vacuum source (element 12 and see paragraph 0032 where the prior art discloses element 12 as “a vacuum source” ) in fluid communication with the openings of the vacuum plate (see figure 6 showing the first vacuum source in fluid communication with the openings (element 23) via elements 10/14/24); and a second vacuum source (element 84 and see paragraph 0054 where the prior art discloses element 82 as “a secondary vacuum source”) in fluid communication with the plurality of suction cups (see figure 6 showing the second vacuum source in fluid communication with the plurality of suction cups (element 80) via elements 82/86); wherein the second vacuum source is configured to apply negative pressure to compress the plurality of suction cups into the compressed state (see figure 7 and see also paragraph 0054).
It would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Chiba with the teaching of Verstreken to provide a second vacuum source in fluid communication with the plurality of suction cups; wherein the second vacuum source is configured to apply negative pressure to compress the plurality of suction cups into the compressed state. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having additional different vacuum sources in fluid communication with the plurality of suction cups would necessarily provide allow for different types of suction power to enable the vacuum table to accommodate highly wrapped substrates, thus enhancing securement and preventing the workpiece from falling off during operations.
Regarding claim 10, Chiba modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 9, but appears to be silent wherein the openings are connected to a primary distribution channel in the vacuum plate, and the first vacuum source is in fluid communication with the openings via the primary distribution channel.
Ellis is also concern in providing a vacuum table (Figures 1A-1B and 8A-9B element 20 and see also paragraph 0046) comprising a vacuum plate (element 50) with a top surface (element 52), a plurality of suction cups (elements 100/110) disposed on the top surface of the vacuum plate (see figure 8A), at least one vacuum source (element 70 and see also paragraph 0047), wherein the vacuum plate also includes openings (element 60) in the top surface (see figure 1A), wherein the openings are connected to a primary distribution channel (element 66) in the vacuum plate (see figure 1B), and the first vacuum source is in fluid communication with the openings via the primary distribution channel see figure 1B showing the vacuum source (element 70) in fluid communication with the openings (element 60) via the primary distribution channel (element 66)).
It would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chiba with the teaching of Ellis to provide wherein the openings are connected to a primary distribution channel in the vacuum plate, and the first vacuum source is in fluid communication with the openings via the primary distribution channel One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing a distribution channel would necessarily provide the predictable result of connecting the openings with the vacuum source in order to provide a desired suction to hold the workpiece during operations.
Regarding claim 11, Chiba modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 9, but appears to be silent wherein the plurality of suction cups are connected to a secondary distribution channel in the vacuum plate, and the second vacuum source is in fluid communication with the secondary distribution channel.
Verstreken further teaches it was known in the art to have a vacuum table (Figures 6-8 and see also paragraphs 0053-0054) comprising a vacuum plate (element 20) having opening (element 23) on a top surface (element 20a), a plurality of suction cups (element 80) disposed on the top surface of the vacuum plate (see figure 6), at least one vacuum source (elements 12/84), wherein the at least one vacuum source comprises: a first vacuum source (element 12 and see paragraph 0032 where the prior art discloses element 12 as “a vacuum source” ), a second vacuum source (element 84 and see paragraph 0054 where the prior art discloses element 82 as “a secondary vacuum source”), wherein the plurality of suction cups are connected to a secondary distribution channel (element 82/86) in the vacuum plate (see figure 6), and the second vacuum source is in fluid communication with the secondary distribution channel (see figure 6 showing the second vacuum source (element 84) in fluid communication with the secondary distribution channel (elements 82/86)).
It would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Chiba with the teaching of Verstreken to provide wherein the plurality of suction cups are connected to a secondary distribution channel in the vacuum plate, and the second vacuum source is in fluid communication with the secondary distribution channel. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having additional different vacuum sources in fluid communication with the plurality of suction cups via different distribution channels would necessarily provide allow for different types of suction power to enable the vacuum table to accommodate highly wrapped substrates, thus enhancing securement and preventing the workpiece from falling off during operations.
Regarding claim 15, Chiba modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 13, but appears to be silent wherein the substrate disposed on the top surface of the vacuum plate is warped such that there is a deflection up to 6 mm, and by flattening the substrate against at least part of the top surface of the top plate, the deflection is reduced to substantially 0 mm.
Verstreken teaches it was known in the art to have a vacuum table (Figures 6-8 and see also paragraphs 0053-0054) comprising a vacuum plate (element 20) having opening (element 23 ) on a top surface (element 20a), a plurality of suction cups (element 80) disposed on the top surface of the vacuum plate (see figure 6), at least one vacuum source (elements 12/84), a substrate (element 21), and wherein the substrate disposed on the top surface of the vacuum plate is warped such that there is a deflection up to 6 mm, and by flattening the substrate against at least part of the top surface of the top plate, the deflection is reduced to substantially 0 mm (see paragraph 0063 where the prior art discloses “substrate disposed on the first side of the top plate may be warped such that there is a deflection up to 5 mm, and by flattening the substrate against at least part of the first side of the top plate, the deflection may be reduced to substantially 0 mm”, thus having overlapping ranges of deflection of up to 6mm and having the range of substantially 0mm. Therefore, meeting the claim limitation.).
It would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chiba with the teaching of Verstreken to provide the substrate disposed on the top surface of the vacuum plate is warped such that there is a deflection up to 6 mm, and by flattening the substrate against at least part of the top surface of the top plate, the deflection is reduced to substantially 0 mm. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that flattening the claimed deflected warped substrate to the reduced claimed deflection would necessarily provide a substantially flat substrate and thus allow the vacuum to easily support the substrate at various different locations and prevent the workpiece from falling off during operations. Lastly, it appears applicant has failed to provide any criticality regarding the deflection of up to 6mm, indicating that the substrate “may be up to 6mm, though other values are possible” (see specification paragraph 0024), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the deflection of up to 6mm claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Claim 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiba (JP 2020185615) in view of Ellis (US Pub. No. 2018/0166314) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fabbri (IT 201800009507).
Regarding claim 21, Chiba modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 1, but appears to be silent wherein each of the first set of suctions cups has a long side and a short side, and wherein the long side of each of the first set of suction cups is parallel to a most proximate of the edges of the top surface.
Fabbri is also concern in providing a gripping device (Figures 1-7 element 1 and see also paragraph 0032) for holding a workpiece (element L). Fabbri further teaches a table (element 10/16) with a top surface (element 15) , a suction cup (element 20 and see also paragraph 0050), and wherein the suction cups has a long side (see figure 2 annotated below Detail A) and a short side (see figure 2 annotated below Detail B) , and wherein the long side of each of the suction cup is parallel to a most proximate of the edges of the top surface (see figure 2 annotated below showing the long side (Detail A) of the suction cup (element 20) being parallel to a most proximate of the edges (Detail C) of the top surface (element 15)).
PNG
media_image2.png
650
984
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chiba with the teaching of Fabbri to provide wherein the suctions cup has a long side and a short side, and wherein the long side of each of the suction cup is parallel to a most proximate of the edges of the top surface. The resultant combination would have the long and short sides of Fabbri now in place of the sides of the first set of suctions cups of Chiba. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a desired design of the first suction cups including having a long and short sides would necessarily provide the predictable result of having suction cups provide suction, thus increasing securement and preventing the workpiece from falling off during operations.
Regarding claim 22, Chiba modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 13, but appears to be silent wherein each of the first set of suctions cups has a long side and a short side, and wherein the long side of each of the first set of suction cups is parallel to a most proximate of the edges of the top surface.
Fabbri is also concern in providing a gripping device (Figures 1-7 element 1 and see also paragraph 0032) for holding a workpiece (element L). Fabbri further teaches a table (element 10/16) with a top surface (element 15) , a suction cup (element 20 and see also paragraph 0050), and wherein the suction cups has a long side (see figure 2 annotated below Detail A) and a short side (see figure 2 annotated below Detail B) , and wherein the long side of each of the suction cup is parallel to a most proximate of the edges of the top surface (see figure 2 annotated below showing the long side (Detail A) of the suction cup (element 20) being parallel to a most proximate of the edges (Detail C) of the top surface (element 15)).
PNG
media_image2.png
650
984
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chiba with the teaching of Fabbri to provide wherein the suctions cup has a long side and a short side, and wherein the long side of each of the suction cup is parallel to a most proximate of the edges of the top surface. The resultant combination would have the long and short sides of Fabbri now in place of the sides of the first set of suctions cups of Chiba. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a desired design of the first suction cups including having a long and short sides would necessarily provide the predictable result of having suction cups provide suction, thus increasing securement and preventing the workpiece from falling off during operations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9 of the “Remarks”, the applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to combine the prior art of Chiba and Ellis, specifically:
Applicant reemphasizes that modifying Chiba to incorporate the openings of Ellis will render Chiba unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Chiba mentions JP2011082457 in its background section. Chiba Translation at [0003]. JP2011082457 includes grooves in its top surface. See JP2011082457 at FIG. 1(a). This is similar to the proposed modification using Ellis. Chiba indicates that such openings or grooves may damage the substrate or that the substrate even may "be destroyed" using this design. Chiba Translation at [0004]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not add features to the design of Chiba that cause damage to the substrate or that will potentially destroy the substrate. "If a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification." MPEP 2143.01 (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
In response to this argument, the Office Action asserts that JP2011082457 is not used in the rejection and that the rejection instead relies on Ellis. Office Action at p. 24. Applicant respectfully submits that JP2011082457 must be considered because it is referred to in the background of Chiba. "A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention." MPEP 2141.02(VI) (citing W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
The Office Action also asserts that Chiba's description of JP2011082457 does not criticize or discourage the configuration of Ellis. Applicant disagrees. JP2011082457 lacks suction cups and instead relies on groove. See JP2011082457 at FIG. 1(c). These grooves in JP2011082457 are akin to openings without suction cups like in Ellis. Ellis describes its vacuum features 0 as "holes, grooves, rings or the like that communicate a vacuum to upper surface 52 of chuck 50." Ellis at [0047] (emphasis added). Chiba clearly criticizes or discourages the use of grooves. Chiba states that the openings like in JP2011082457 (or, consequently, Ellis) can damage or destroy the substrate. Chiba Translation at [0004]. Chiba teaches that the suction cup recesses are sufficient without grooves/openings. Id. at [0005]. Given the damage or destruction that the grooves in JP2011082457 can cause, one skilled in the art would not consider adding the related openings of Ellis into the design of Chiba.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner again notes that the prior art of JP2011082457 mention in the background of Chiba is not being utilized in the rejection above (claims 1 and 13), but instead utilizing the prior art of Ellis in the rejections of claims 1 and 13 (see above). Furthermore, the examiner acknowledges that the prior art points outs the drawbacks of utilizing the configuration of the prior art of JP2011082457. However, there is no evidence that criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the utilization of the configuration as provide by the prior art of Ellis (discloses utilizing both openings and suction cups) or explicitly discourages the use of “openings” in order to provide suction.
Applicant' s arguments on pages 8-9 that Chiba (primary reference) teaches away from the use of grooves, the argument is not persuasive. However, Examiner respectfully contends that Chiba’s disclosure pertaining to grooves does not wholly disqualify all possible combinations with references disclosing the claimed vacuum table. Under the broadest reasonable interpretations of the claims, e.g. vacuum table could be added or modified for different reasons without rendering the vacuum table by Chiba inoperable. It is noted that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))." MPEP §2123.
Furthermore, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, from the teaching of Ellis, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Chiba in order to provide predictable result of providing additional suction, thus increasing securement and preventing the workpiece from falling off during operations.
Lastly, the prior art of Ellis discloses a list of examples of element 60 including “holes, grooves, rings or the like” (see paragraph 0047), and as shown in the rejection above (wherein the vacuum plate also includes openings (element 60) in the top surface (see figure 1A), see pages 6 and 12), the examiner is not relying on a groove as element 60, but rather a hole of element 60 as best shown and stated in the rejection above (see figure 1A of Ellis), which well known in the art that a hole (i.e. circular, enclosed opening) is structurally different from a groove (i.e. elongated, narrow, open indentation). Thus, arguments have been found unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM EST.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723