Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/202,892

WAFER CHUCK APPARATUS WITH AIR MEMBER AND METHOD OF FABRICATING A SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE USING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 27, 2023
Examiner
SNYDER, ALAN W
Art Unit
3722
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
561 granted / 679 resolved
+12.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
715
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
50.5%
+10.5% vs TC avg
§102
27.4%
-12.6% vs TC avg
§112
19.2%
-20.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 679 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II, claims 9-20 in the reply filed on 12/10/2025 is acknowledged. 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. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (JP 200539123, hereinafter ‘Kobayashi’) in view of Angelov et al. (US 20170154804, hereinafter ‘Angelov’) and Takada et al. (US 20220139755, hereinafter ‘Takada’). Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi discloses (in e.g. Fig. 6) a wafer chuck system comprising a support portion 6 and a wafer chuck 7 in a disk shape positioned on the support portion. An air member 8 is disposed between the support portion and the wafer chuck and is connected to an external air pump. Kobayashi does not disclose the claimed hinge and vacuum channels (Kobayashi continuously references the apparatus being ‘controlled’ but does not disclose an explicit controller, while not explicitly disclosed, it is considered to be inherent that any modern automated apparatus such as the one taught by Kobayashi that controls elements thereof is equipped with a controller configured to control the same). Angelov discloses a similar wafer chuck apparatus comprising a support portion 115 with a wafer chuck. A hinge 408 is disposed at the center of a lower portion of the wafer chuck to keep the chuck centered while allowing it to pivot while raised and lowered by respective actuators 402. A controller 408 is provided to operate the system. Takada discloses another similar wafer chuck apparatus wherein the wafer chuck is provided with a plurality of vacuum channels 113 therein, wherein a single vacuum suction pipe is provided to the suction unit/vacuum pump 103. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the hinge of Angelov and vacuum channels/pump of Takada to the apparatus of Kobayashi in order to more securely hold the wafer chuck in place while allowing a vacuum system to securely hold the substrate to the wafer chuck. The controller of Kobayashi/Angelov would then be configured to control the vacuum pump, air pump and vacuum suction pipe of the modified apparatus in order to provide a cohesive automated machine for processing wafers. Claims 10-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (JP 200539123) in view of Angelov et al. (US 20170154804) and Takada et al. (US 20220139755) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of KR 19980004871. Regarding claims 10 and 11, Kobayashi discloses at least one inner air holder (inflatable bellows 8) disposed around a central through hole surrounding the vacuum suction pipe on an upper surface of the base in a circumferential direction and connecting the upper surface of the base with a lower surface of the wafer chuck in the modified apparatus of claim 9. The combination of Kobayashi, Angelov and Takada do not disclose the claimed outer air holder. KR ‘871 discloses a similar wafer chuck apparatus, wherein an outer air member 165 in the form of a circular pleated tube having a plurality of pleats and a base on the upper surface of a support portion 40 connects the edges of two elements and provides a seal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the modified apparatus of claim 9 with an outer air holder, as taught by KR ‘871 in order to seal the gap between the edge of the wafer chuck and support portion to keep the vacuum sealed, and preventing foreign debris from entering. Regarding claim 12, the modified apparatus of claim 10 includes the outer air holder and inner air holder being formed of a membrane. Regarding claim 13, Kobayashi discloses a plurality of inner air holders being provided around the center of the chuck, and each of the plurality of air holders has the shape of a circular pleated tube having a plurality of pleats (see e.g. Fig. 7). Regarding claims 14 and 15, Kobayashi discloses the controller being configured to divide the plurality of inner air holders into left and right inner air holes around the center of the device and to inject a different amount of air into each of a plurality of inner air holders positioned in an opposite direction to a tilting direction in order to tilt the wafer chuck to a predetermined angle (see e.g. Fig. 9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to calculate the differing amounts of air to inject based on a length of an arc from an inner air holder in the center of the plurality of inner air holders to an adjacent inner air holder, an area ratio based on how many inner air holders there are, and a desired tilt angle of the wafer chuck in order to provide an accurate angle to the workpiece. Regarding claim 16, the inner air holders are disposed around a central through hole surrounding the vacuum suction pipe on the upper surface of the base at equal intervals of the modified apparatus of claim 10 (see e.g. Fig. 7 of Kobayashi). Regarding claim 18, Kobayashi discloses (in e.g. Fig. 6) a wafer chuck system comprising a support portion 6 and a wafer chuck 7 in a disk shape positioned on the support portion. An air member 8 is disposed between the support portion and the wafer chuck and is connected to an external air pump. The air member includes at least one inner air holder (inflatable bellows 8) disposed around a central through hole surrounding the vacuum suction pipe on an upper surface of the base in a circumferential direction and connecting the upper surface of the base with a lower surface of the wafer chuck. Kobayashi does not disclose the claimed hinge and vacuum channels or outer air member (Kobayashi continuously references the apparatus being ‘controlled’ but does not disclose an explicit controller, while not explicitly disclosed, it is considered to be inherent that any modern automated apparatus such as the one taught by Kobayashi that controls elements thereof is equipped with a controller configured to control the same). Angelov discloses a similar wafer chuck apparatus comprising a support portion 115 with a wafer chuck. A hinge 408 is disposed at the center of a lower portion of the wafer chuck to keep the chuck centered while allowing it to pivot while raised and lowered by respective actuators 402. A controller 408 is provided to operate the system. Takada discloses another similar wafer chuck apparatus wherein the wafer chuck is provided with a plurality of vacuum channels 113 therein, wherein a single vacuum suction pipe is provided to the suction unit/vacuum pump 103. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the hinge of Angelov and vacuum channels/pump of Takada to the apparatus of Kobayashi in order to more securely hold the wafer chuck in place while allowing a vacuum system to securely hold the substrate to the wafer chuck. The controller of Kobayashi/Angelov would then be configured to control the vacuum pump, air pump and vacuum suction pipe of the modified apparatus in order to provide a cohesive automated machine for processing wafers. The combination of Kobayashi, Angelov and Takada do not disclose the claimed outer air holder. KR ‘871 discloses a similar wafer chuck apparatus, wherein an outer air member 165 in the form of a circular pleated tube having a plurality of pleats and a base on the upper surface of a support portion 40 connects the edges of two elements and provides a seal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the modified apparatus with an outer air holder, as taught by KR ‘871 in order to seal the gap between the edge of the wafer chuck and support portion to keep the vacuum sealed, and preventing foreign debris from entering. Regarding claims 19 and 20, Kobayashi discloses the controller being configured to divide the plurality of inner air holders into left and right inner air holes around the center of the device and to inject a different amount of air into each of a plurality of inner air holders positioned in an opposite direction to a tilting direction in order to tilt the wafer chuck to a predetermined angle (see e.g. Fig. 9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to calculate the differing amounts of air to inject based on a length of an arc from an inner air holder in the center of the plurality of inner air holders to an adjacent inner air holder, an area ratio based on how many inner air holders there are, and a desired tilt angle of the wafer chuck in order to provide an accurate angle to the workpiece. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p. 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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. /Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 27, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 11, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 17, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 17, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583036
Conduit Reamer
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576453
MACHINING SYSTEM AND CUTTING INSERT AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569953
CONTROL DEVICE AND CONTROL METHOD FOR MACHINE TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12544838
CUTTING ELEMENT AND THE USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12539544
BORING TOOL AND CUTTING INSERT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+10.9%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 679 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month