Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/238,737

Vacuum Wafer Chuck With Solid Diamond Pins

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Aug 28, 2023
Examiner
HALL JR, TYRONE VINCENT
Art Unit
3723
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
II-VI Delaware, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
705 granted / 921 resolved
+6.5% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
967
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
44.2%
+4.2% vs TC avg
§102
32.7%
-7.3% vs TC avg
§112
19.6%
-20.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 921 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 of Group I in the reply filed on February 3, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation "the dimension" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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. Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coppola et al. US 2022/0227676. Coppola discloses (see claims 11 and 16) a reaction-bonded silicon carbide body, comprising: a main body portion (206), comprising reaction-bonded silicon carbide and elemental silicon, and not comprising diamond (claim 16, ¶0020); and one or more discrete elements (202) of a dimension, located at least partially within the main body portion, each comprising a single diamond particle (42) of the dimension, reaction-bonded silicon carbide coatings surrounding the diamond particles, and elemental silicon (claim 16, ¶0020). The transitional term “comprising” is an inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps (see MPEP 2111.03). Furthermore, see Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1371-73, 74 USPQ2d 1586, 1589-91 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that a claim to “a safety razor blade unit comprising a guard, a cap, and a group of first, second, and third blades” encompasses razors with more than three blades because the transitional phrase “comprising” in the preamble and the phrase “group of” are presumptively open-ended. “The word ‘comprising’ transitioning from the preamble to the body signals that the entire claim is presumptively open-ended.” In the instant case, the discrete element “comprising” a single diamond particles can also contain more than one single diamond particle as claimed; thus, Coppola anticipates the claimed limitation. As for claim 2, Coppola discloses wherein the main body portion is configured for use within a vacuum wafer chuck (¶0029). As for claim 3, Coppola discloses wherein the discrete elements comprise pins (202) for supporting a semiconductor wafer. As for claim 4, Coppola discloses wherein the pins (202) comprise first portions (see Fig. 10, bottom of 202) located within the main body portion (206), and the pins comprise second portions (212) which stand proud above the main body portion and the first portions. As for claim 5, Coppola discloses wherein the first portions of the pins have a first diameter (D1), the second portions of the pins have a second diameter (D2, see annotated Fig. 10 below), and the first diameter is greater than the second diameter, the second diameter being substantially equal to the dimension (see annotated Fig. 10 below). PNG media_image1.png 233 684 media_image1.png Greyscale As for claim 6, Coppola discloses wherein the pins are separated from each other (see Fig. 10 above) and prevents bi-metallic strip stresses (¶0030, claim 13). As for claim 7, Coppola discloses wherein the discrete elements are configured to provide high heat flux directly under a die, without reducing the machinability of the main body portion (¶0036, claim 14). As for claim 8, Coppola discloses wherein the discrete elements are configured to provide local diamond reinforcement at a wear face, without reducing the machinability of the main body portion (¶0026 and ¶0036, claim 15). 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(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coppola et al. US 2022/0227676 in view of Sung US 9238207. As for claim 9, Coppola discloses all the limitations as recited above but does not disclose the type of diamond particle (42) used specifically wherein the single diamond particle may comprise a single crystal or a polycrystalline crystal. However, the use of single diamond particle comprising a single crystal (natural) or a polycrystalline crystal (synthetic) is well known in the art as evidence by Sung who teaches the use of natural or synthetic diamond particles (col. 12, lines 13-21) formed from crystal diamond (natural) or polycrystalline diamond (synthetic) for forming tools. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify and/or substitute the diamond particle of Coppola with a single diamond crystal or polycrystalline diamond crystal as taught by Sung. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYRONE V HALL JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5948. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 7:30am-3:30pm. 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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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. /TYRONE V HALL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 28, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603483
ABOVE RACK CABLE PULL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595162
Saddle and Removable Extension for a Floor Jack with Storage Assembly
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589456
A TOOL ASSEMBLY AND A SYSTEM FOR USING IN A CARRIAGE GUIDE RAIL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590470
VEHICLE PARKING LIFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583090
CONSTRUCTION TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
76%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+23.1%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 921 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