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 with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 08/03/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
“In the present case, Applicant submits that claims corresponding to Groups I and II are related to similar subject matter of gripping clamps and as a result are classified in B25J 15. Due to the similar classifications, separate searches would likely identify the same references. Therefore, the claims 1-7 and 8-12 should be examined together.
Withdrawal of the restriction requirement between Groups I and II is respectfully requested.
In the present case, Applicant submits that claims corresponding to Groups I and III are related to similar subject matter of gripping clamps and a gripping clamp in a a chemical mechanical polishing system, both classified as B25J. Due to the similar classifications, separate searches would likely identify the same references. Therefore, the claims 1-7 and 13-20 should be examined together. (See Pages 5 and 6 of the Applicant’s Arguments)”
This is not found persuasive because as noted in the restriction requirement dated 06/05/26; one of the reasons for requiring a restriction is that the prior art applicable to one invention would not be applicable to another invention. In this instance, either one of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0224491 (Gillespie et al.) OR U.S. Patent No. 6,918,735 (Urban et al.) would apply to claim 1 as elected, but would not apply to either one of claim 8 or 13 of the non-elected inventions which require both a vacuum channel in communication with the roller recess and one or more cleaning modules for chemical mechanical polishing.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “a roller port of the clamp arm.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to whether the descriptor “roller” is meant to imply any specific structure to the “port” as recited? For purposes of examination, the examiner takes the term “roller” as imparting no actual structural, but rather just being a descriptive name for the “port.”
Claim 4 recites “two clamp arms.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “two clamp arms” of claim 4 relate to the previously recited “a clamp arm” as recited in claim 1? For purposes of examination, it is assumed that the “two clamp arms” are meant to part of the previously recited “a clamp arm.” To overcome this rejection, the phrase “a clamp arm” in claim 1 should be replaced with “at least one clamp arm”; with the recitation of “two clamp arms” in claim 4 being “the at least one clamp arm including two clamp arms.”
Claim 5 recites “two or more grippers.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “two or more grippers” of claim 5 relate to the previously recited “a gripper” as recited in claim 1? For purposes of examination, it is assumed that the “two or more grippers” are meant to part of the previously recited “a gripper.” To overcome this rejection, the phrase “a gripper” in claim 1 should be replaced with “at least one gripper”; with the recitation of “two or more grippers” in claim 5 being “the at least one gripper including two or more grippers.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0224491 (Gillespie et al.).
Regarding Claims 1, and 4-7, Gillespie et al. teaches: Claim 1 - a substrate gripping clamp, comprising: a clamp arm (14 or 16) and a roller recess (where (43) points in Figure 2 for receiving a gripper (46)) disposed therein; and a gripper (Figure 2 shows gripper (46) disposed in the recess (43) in Figure 2 by threaded portion (64); wherein Figures 9A and 9B show another embodiment of a gripper (310) having a threaded portion (313) for being attached to the arms (14 or 16) in place of the gripper (46)) disposed within the roller recess (43) and coupled to the clamp arm (14 or 16), the gripper (310) comprising: a top bevel face (332); a bottom bevel face (334); and a mid roller face (330) between the top bevel face (332) and the bottom bevel face (334), (Figures 1-9B); Claim 4 - wherein the clamp comprises two clamp arms (14 or 16), (Figures 1-9B); Claim 5 - wherein the clamp comprises two or more grippers (multiple grippers (36/37, 38/39) shown on the arm (14) in Figure 1), (Figures 1-9B); Claim 6 – wherein the clamp is configured to contact a substrate at a point on the top bevel face (332) and a point on the bottom bevel face (334), (Figures 1-9B); Claim 7 - wherein the top bevel face (332) and bottom bevel face (334) partially extend past a substrate contact face, (Figures 1-9B).
Claim(s) 1, and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,918,735 (Urban et al.).
Regarding Claims 1, and 4-7, Urban et al. teaches: Claim 1 - a substrate gripping clamp, comprising: a clamp arm (11 or 12) and a roller recess (openings in arms (11 or 12) which receive grippers (14) therein) disposed therein; and a gripper (14) disposed within the roller recess (openings in arms (11 or 12) which receive grippers (14) therein) and coupled to the clamp arm (11 or 12), the gripper (14) comprising: a top bevel face (16); a bottom bevel face (17); and a mid roller face (14) between the top bevel face (16) and the bottom bevel face (17), (Figures 1-10); Claim 4 - wherein the clamp comprises two clamp arms (11 or 12), (Figures 1-9B); Claim 5 - wherein the clamp comprises two or more grippers (multiple grippers (14) shown on the arm (11 or 12) in Figure 6), (Figures 1-10); Claim 6 – wherein the clamp is configured to contact a substrate at a point on the top bevel face (16) and a point on the bottom bevel face (17), (Figures 1-10); Claim 7 - wherein the top bevel face (16) and bottom bevel face (17) partially extend past a substrate contact face, (Figures 1-10).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either ONE of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0224491 (Gillespie et al.) OR U.S. Patent No. 6,918,735 (Urban et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0072645 (Murray et al.).
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, either ONE of Gillespie et al. OR Urban et al. teaches the clamp as described above, but does not teach: a vacuum channel disposed within the clamp arm (Claim 2); and wherein the vacuum channel fluidly couples a roller port of the clamp arm to a vacuum port of the clamp arm (Claim 3). However, Murray et al. teaches: Claims 2 and 3 – an arm (9) of a wafer holder including roller gripping elements (12as-12f) for gripping/aligning a wafer (4), the grippers (12a-12f) being attached to vacuum channels (84) within the arm (9), wherein the vacuum channel (84) fluidly couples a roller port of the clamp arm (9) to a vacuum port of the clamp arm (9), (Figures 1-11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the clamp of either ONE of Gillespie et al. OR Urban et al. to have a vacuum channel disposed within the clamp arm (Claim 2); and wherein the vacuum channel fluidly couples a roller port of the clamp arm to a vacuum port of the clamp arm (Claim 3) as taught by Murray et al. for the purposes of additionally providing a vacuuming source at the location of the grippers to aide in holding the wafers securely.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 271467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA E RODDEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights