DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Species A-2, and Species B-2 in the reply filed on June 5, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5 – 8 and 14 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 5, 2026.
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 3 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 3 recites the limitations “a lowered distance of the second electrostatic chuck is greater than a lowered distance of the first electrostatic chuck.” Examiner notes that “distance” is commonly defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “the amount of separation between two points.” Because the two points which define the starting and ending points of the ‘lowered distances’ are not defined in the claim, it is generally unclear as to Applicant’s intent regarding the ‘lowered distances’ of the limitation. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a lowered position of the second electrostatic chuck is lower than a lowered position of the first electrostatic chuck.”
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 – 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shim (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0343566).
As to claim 1, Shim teaches a substrate planarization device (abstract) comprising: a peripheral coupler comprising a first electrostatic chuck configured to be attached to a peripheral area of a substrate (figure 1, left element ESC being the ‘first electrostatic chuck’; paragraphs 59 and 65 – 67), and a first elevator configured to raise and lower the first electrostatic chuck in a vertical direction within a first movable range (figure 1, left element SD being the ‘first elevator’; paragraphs 59 and 68); and a central coupler comprising a second electrostatic chuck configured to be attached to a central area of the substrate (figure 1, right element ESC being the ‘second electrostatic chuck’; paragraphs 59 and 65 – 67), and a second elevator that is configured to raise and lower the second electrostatic chuck in the vertical direction within a second movable range that is greater than a first movable range (figure 1, right element SD being the ‘second elevator’; paragraphs 59 and 68). Examiner notes that this can be found because Shim teaches that the first and second elevators act to raise and lower the first and second electrostatic chucks within a vertical range (figure 1, elements SD and ESC; paragraph 68). It is the position of the Examiner that the entirety of the vertical range of the second elevator is the ‘second movable range’ of the limitation while a portion of the vertical range of the first elevator is the ‘first movable range’ of the limitation. Alternatively explained, the limitation does not require the ‘first movable range’ to be defined between a highest position and a lowest position of the first elevator.
As to claim 2, Shim teaches that the first electrostatic hcuck and the second electrostatic chuck are configured to be individually lowered (figure 1, elements ESC; paragraph 68).
As to claim 3, Shim teaches that a lowered position of the second electrostatic chuck is lower than a lowered position of the first electrostatic chuck (figure 1, elements ESC; paragraph 68). This can be found because the limitations of the claim do not require the ‘lowered position of the first electrostatic chuck’ to be a lowest possible position of the first electrostatic chuck.
As to claim 4, Shim teaches that the first electrostatic chuck partially surrounds the second electrostatic chuck (figure 1, elements ESC). This can be found because Shim teaches that the first electrostatic chuck ‘surrounds’ a portion of the left side of the second electrostatic chuck. Therefore, it is the position of the Examiner that the first electrostatic chuck “partially surrounds” the second electrostatic chuck.
As to claim 13, Shim teaches that a size of the first electrostatic chuck is less than a size of the second electrostatic chuck (figure 1, elements ESC). This can be found because Shim clearly teaches that a thickness of the first electrostatic chuck is less than a width of the second electrostatic chuck (figure 1, elements ESC).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 – 12 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Shim clearly teaches that the first and second electrostatic chucks are displaced from each other (figure 1, elements ESC), such that no portion of the first and second electrostatic chucks overlap each other in the vertical direction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights