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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending;
Claims 1-20 are original; claims 8-20 are withdrawn;
Claims 1-7 are rejected herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 10/25/2023 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I (claims 1-7), Species (a) (semiconductor device of Figs. 1-2) and Species (a) edge covering of Figs. 3-4 in the reply filed on 1/23/2026 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)).
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 1-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because in light of the disclosure, it is unclear how the upper ring (101) includes a first side wall (SW1) that faces the second hole and forms a first angle with the upper surface of the lower ring, the first angle being an acute angle because as shown below the angle appears to be an obtuse angle.
PNG
media_image1.png
584
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear how the first and second surfaces of the upper rings are connected the surface of the edge ring as shown above, it appears that the surface of the edge ring is in contact with the sidewall and the upper surface of the lower ring.
The recitation of claim 5 wherein “…the third angle is smaller than the first angle and an acute angle…” renders the claim indefinite because the recitation is creating ambiguity as to whether the Applicant intend to claim the third angle that is an acute angle and smaller then the first angle or the third angle is smaller than the first angle and the acute angle recited in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the coupler" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims 2 and 4 and 6 are rejected based on their respective dependencies.
Appropriate correction/explanation is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hall (U.S. Pat. No. 4188151).
Regarding claim 1, Hall teaches an edge covering comprising:
a lower ring (lower ring of 15a defined by 20) including a first hole (central hole of 20); and
an upper ring (upper ring portion of 15a comprising 25) on the lower ring, wherein the upper ring includes a second hole (hole defined by 25) that overlaps the first hole,
wherein an edge ring (15b) is seated on an upper surface of the lower ring (see Figs. 1-2 for configuration), and
the upper ring includes a first side wall (H1 see annotated figure below) that faces the second hole and forms a first angle (H2 see annotated figure below) with the upper surface of the lower ring, the first angle being an acute angle.
PNG
media_image2.png
498
461
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hall as best understood teaches the upper ring further comprises a second side wall (H3 see annotated figure above) that forms a second angle (H4 see annotated figure above) with the upper surface of the lower ring, the second angle being greater than the first angle.
Regarding claim 3, the upper ring further comprises an edge ring extension surface (15b in contact with surfaces of 15a) connecting an upper end of the first side wall and an upper end of the second side wall.
Regarding claim 4, Hall teaches the edge ring extension surface (lower surface of 15b parallel to the surface of 20) is parallel to the upper surface of the lower ring.
Regarding claim 5, Hall teaches the edge ring extension surface forms a third angle (parallel angle) with the upper surface (surface of 20) of the lower ring (15a), and the third angle is smaller than the first angle and an acute angle.
Regarding claim 7, Hall teaches the lower surface of the lower ring (15a) faces the coupler (16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (U.S. Pat. No. 4188151).
Regarding claim 6, Hall teaches wherein the edge ring having a first edge ring member (portion having 42) and a second edge ring member (portion having 51). Hall is silent to disclose the edge ring member being a separable element. The edge ring member is separable into a first edge ring member and a second edge ring member along a plane parallel to a lower surface of the lower ring, and the first edge ring member is detachable from the upper surface of the second edge ring member. However, the Examiner notes that providing known parts integral or separable is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art see e.g. MPEP 2144.04. Thus, it would have been obvious too one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first edge ring member and the second edge ring member separable. The motivation would have been to make the packaging compact in design for shipping purposes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD IJAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 am-10:00 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 5712728227. 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.
MUHAMMAD IJAZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3631
/Muhammad Ijaz/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights