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 .
Status of Claims / Response to Amendment
This action is in reply to the response filed on 1/23/2026. Claim 2 is canceled. Claims 1 and 3 are currently pending and have been examined.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gokita (US PGPUB No. 2021/0074537), hereinafter referred to as Gokita.
Regarding claims 1 (Currently Amended) and 3 (Currently Amended), Gokita discloses a processing apparatus that flattens a workpiece with a grinding stone [Gokita, fig 2, 10 which has grindstones 28 that flattens a wafer 11], the processing apparatus comprising:
a suction member capable of suction-holding the workpiece [Gokita, fig 4B and page 2, pp 0027, 16, where the office notes that the term “suction member” is a common term used in the art and that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what this structure is]; and
an attachment that is provided on an outer periphery side of the suction member [Gokita, fig 4B, 18], to be detachably attached to a chuck table that accommodates the suction member [Gokita, page 2, pp 0029, where 18 may be formed separately from chuck table 14 and fig 4B, 18 accommodates 16], is composed of a material harder to grind than the suction member [Gokita, page 2, pp 0027, 14 is made of metal, glass, ceramic, or resin, 16 is a porous ceramic, and pp 0029, 18 may be a different material from 14, but may use the same materials as 14, where in the instant case, 18 may be made of ceramic, and 16 is porous ceramic, where ceramic is harder than porous ceramic due because there is less material in porous ceramic and therefore reduces the hardness as this is a property of the material], and can contact the grinding stone during self-grinding for grinding the suction member [Gokita, page 4, pp 0045, abrasive members of 28 come into contact with both the top surface of 18 and the top surface of 16] (clm 1); and
wherein the workpiece is formed in a non- circular shape [Gokita, 1A, the workpiece 11 is non-circular in that the shape is not completely circular and has a flat edge 11c, further the Office notes that per MPEP 2115 "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." Where in the instant case, the inclusion of the workpiece and the shape of the workpiece is given proper patentable weight] (clm 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Starting on page 4 the Applicant has argued the following points about how 18 of Gokita is not detachably attached: that preferably the material of 16 and 18 are the same, that Gokita teaches away from making 18 detachable because the material of 16 and 18 are the same and the disclosure in paragraph [0029] merely allows the frame to be formed separately and independently and no description that 18 is provided detachably on the base. The Office respectfully disagrees for the following reasons: first, as the applicant pointed out, the disclosure uses the term “preferably” which broadly means the applicant contemplates that it may also not be the same material, further the Office distinctly point this out in the Office action when showing the materials of porous ceramic and ceramic materials, which are different. Second, the recited claim uses the term “detachably attached”, which broadly interpreted is that at some point, the two parts must have been separate and then attached, and as shown in the Office action and noted by the applicant, the disclosure in pp [0029] does teach they are formed separately and meets the limitation of “detachably attached”. No where does the claim recite that the two must be detached or separated again later or even that the two structures must be independent and separate as implied by the Applicant. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ishikawa et al (US PGPUB No. 2007/0063453) teaches in figures 5A-B a chuck comprising a suction member and an attachment provided on the outer periphery side of the suction member.
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 ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights