Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 04, 2026
Application No. 18/412,358

VACUUM WAFER CHUCK FOR MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jan 12, 2024
Priority
May 08, 2020 — divisional of 11/335,585 +1 more
Examiner
KREILING, AMANDA J
Art Unit
3726
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allowance Rate
383 granted / 458 resolved
+13.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
471
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
46.8%
+6.8% vs TC avg
§102
32.6%
-7.4% vs TC avg
§112
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 458 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraphs [0044-0045;0048] recite “jointing screws 234” and “joining screws 234” it appears the “jointing screws 234” should be rewritten to be “joining screws 234” to maintain consistent terminology with the specification and the claims. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 14, the claim recites “am” and should be rewritten to be “an”. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-20 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 1: In line 4, the claim recites “the top surface”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis within the claim. Claim 2: In line 2, the claim recites “the back surface”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis within the claim. Claim 4: In line 3, the claim recites “the top surface to the back surface of the base region”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis within the claim. Claim 4: In line 3, the claim recites “the back surface of the base region”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis within the claim. Claim 8: In line 4, the claim recites “the top surface”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis within the claim. Claim 9: In line 2, the claim recites “the back surface”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis within the claim. Claim 11: In line 5, the claim recites “the top surface to the back surface of the base region”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis within the claim. Claim 11: In line 5, the claim recites “the back surface of the base region”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis within the claim. Claim 14: In line 4, the claim recites “the top surface”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis within the claim. Claim 15: In line 2, the claim recites “the back surface”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis within the claim. Claim 17: In line 4, the claim recites “the top surface to the back surface of the base region”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis within the claim. Claim 17: In line 4, the claim recites “the back surface of the base region”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis within the claim. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 7. U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art identified, Forderhase (US20180350654) teaches a semiconductor manufacturing system (100) comprising (Fig. 1A): a substrate holder (120) (Fig. 1A); wherein the substrate holder is configured with a plurality of pins (143); and a substrate displacing assembly (101) for displacing a substrate (110) on the substrate holder (120) in a first direction perpendicular to the top surface of the substrate holder (120) through the plurality of pins, wherein the substrate displacing assembly (101) comprises (Fig. 1A-1B) a pair of load forks (142), a coupler and a driving shaft (144, Fig. 1B), wherein the pair of load forks comprises a fork region and a base region (Fig. 1B); wherein the coupler is coupled to the base region (Fig. 1B); wherein the driving shaft is mechanically coupled to the coupler (Fig. 1B; [0030]). Forderhase does not teach the coupler is mechanically coupled to the base region through at least one first joining screw extending in the first direction, wherein the coupler is further mechanically coupled to the driving shaft through a second joining screw extending in the first direction. Since there are no known references that in combination with all other limitations in the independent claims, the claims are determined to be novel and non-obvious. Forderhase does not teach a clearance distance in a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction, between an inner wall of the coupler to a side wall of the driving shaft is greater than 0.1 millimeters as recited in claims 8 and 14. Since there are no known references that in combination with all other limitations in the independent claims, the claims are determined to be novel and non-obvious. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda J Kreiling whose telephone number is (571)272-6091. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Sunil 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. /Amanda Kreiling/Examiner, Art Unit 3726 2/5/26 /JASON L VAUGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 12, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12611741
SYSTEM OF AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATED MOUNTING/DISMOUNTING OF A CUTTING INSERT ON A TOOL BODY
2y 9m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12611753
PRESSING TOOL
2y 8m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12606386
SECONDARY BATTERY ELECTRODE PRODUCTION SYSTEM
2y 1m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12603261
ALIGNER STATION WITH LIFTING MECHANISM
2y 0m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595900
MAGNETIC LIGHT HANGING KIT
1y 10m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+10.0%)
2y 2m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 458 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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