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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “to the circular-ring-shaped region” in line 5 should be corrected as --to the circular-ring-shaped region;--. 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 2-3 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 2: Claim 2 recites “second pin-shaped convex portions” in lines 6 and 10. This renders the scope of the claim indefinite. It is not clear whether “second pin-shaped convex portions” in line 10 refers to one in line 6 or if they are separate and distinct from each other. For examination purposes, “second pin-shaped convex portions” in line 10 is interpreted as --the second pin-shaped convex portions--.
Claim 3: Claim 3 recites “second pin-shaped convex portions” in line 8. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. Claim 2 (which upon claim 3 depends) recites “second pin-shaped convex portions” in line 6. It is not clear whether “second pin-shaped convex portions” in claim 3 refers to one in claim 2 or if they are separate and distinct from each other. For examination purposes, “second pin-shaped convex portions” is interpreted as --the second pin-shaped convex portions--.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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(s) 1-3, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asada (US 2009/0060688 A1) in view of Onodera et al (US 2018/0374739 A1).
Regarding claim 1¸ Asada (‘688) discloses a substrate holding member (fig2) comprising:
a base body 2 (para[0040],[0041]) having a circular plate shape (fig2, “disk-like”, para[0040]) and including a center (of the circular plate shape, fig2), an outer peripheral region (figA below), and an upper surface (figs1A,2,), the upper surface including an outer periphery (figs1A,2, an outer periphery of the circular plate shape), the base body 2 defining a plurality of vent holes 6 (para[0043]) that open in the upper surface (fig1A), including a vent hole closest (figA,fig2, outer vent holes) to the outer periphery (figA,fig2), an imaginary circle (dotted lined circle; figA) being concentric with the center and passing through the vent hole closest to the outer periphery (figA), the outer peripheral region (figA) situated on an outer side of the imaginary circle (figA);
a plurality of pin-shaped convex portions 2a (para[0041], fig1A) protruding upward from the upper surface of the base body 2 (fig1A); and
a ring-shaped convex portion 2b (figs1A,2; para[0041]) protruding upward from the upper surface of the base body 2 (fig1A) and surrounding the plurality of pin-shaped convex portions 2a (figs1A,2),
wherein at least a part of the plurality of pin-shaped convex portions 2a arranged in the outer peripheral region are first pin-shaped convex portions (figA,1A).
PNG
media_image1.png
587
663
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Asada does not explicitly disclose that each of the first pin-shaped convex portions include a first convex element and a second convex element, the second convex element protruding upward from an upper end surface of the first convex element and having an upper end surface whose area is smaller than an area of the upper end surface of the first convex element.
Onodera et al (‘739) teaches a use of a pin-shaped convex portion 20 (para[0040], fig2) including a first convex element 23 (para[0040], fig2) and a second convex element 24 (para[0040], fig2), the first convex element 23 protruding upward from an upper surface (para[0040], “project from the surface of the base 10”) of a base body 10 (fig2, para[0040]), the second convex element 24 protruding upward from an upper end surface (fig2) of the first convex element 23 and having an upper end surface 20a (para[0042], fig2) whose area is smaller than an area of the upper end surface of the first convex element 23 (fig2). Onodera et al teaches that the area of the top surface of the pin-shaped convex portion needs to be reduced to minimize the contact area between each pin-shaped convex portions and the substrate (para[0004]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Asada to use a pin-shaped convex portion having a second convex element protruding upward from a first convex element where the second convex element having an upper end surface whose area is smaller than an area of the upper end surface of the first convex element, as taught by Onodera et al, for the purpose of minimizing the contact area between the pin-shaped convex portions and the substrate.
Regarding claim 2¸ the combination of Asada and Onodera et al teaches the substrate holding member according to claim 1. Asada further discloses wherein: the base body 2 further includes an inner side (figA above, an area within the imaginary circle) with respect to the outer peripheral region (figA); the plurality of pin-shaped convex portions 2a include second pin-shaped convex portions (ones in the inner side, within the imaginary circle, figA) each having a columnar shape (fig1A); and at least a part of the plurality of pin-shaped convex portions 2a disposed on the inner side of the base body 2 are the second pin-shaped convex portions.
Regarding claim 3¸ the combination of Asada and Onodera et al teaches the substrate holding member according to claim 2. Asada further discloses wherein: the outer peripheral region (figA) further includes a circular-ring-shaped region (an inner peripheral portion of the outer peripheral region adjacent to the imaginary circle) and an outer side (an outer peripheral portion of the outer peripheral region adjacent to the ring-shaped convex portion 2b) with respect to the circular-ring-shaped region (figA); at least a part of the plurality of pin-shaped convex portions 2a positioned on the outer side of the base body 2 are the second pin-shaped convex portions (figA,2, each of the regions includes pin-shaped convex portions).
Regarding claim 5¸ the combination of Asada and Onodera et al teaches the substrate holding member according to claim 1. Asada further discloses wherein the plurality of pin-shaped convex portions include second pin-shaped convex portions (ones within the imaginary circle, figA) each having a columnar shape and an upper end surface (a substrate contacting surface), and an area of an upper end surface of each of the first pin-shaped convex portions is equal to an area of the upper end surface of each of the second pin-shaped convex portions (the first and second pin-shaped convex portions have same configuration).
Regarding claim 7¸ the combination of Asada and Onodera et al teaches the substrate holding member according to claim 1. Asada further discloses wherein the base body 2 has a grooved portion 7 (para[0043], fig1A) that communicates with the vent holes 6 (para[0043], fig1A) and that opens in a lower surface of the base body 2.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Asada (US 2009/0060688 A1) and Onodera et al (US 2018/0374739 A1) in view of Horiuchi (US 2015/0311108 A1).
Regarding claim 6¸ the combination of Asada and Onodera et al teaches the substrate holding member according to claim 1. Onodera et al teaches wherein a distance from the upper surface of the base body 10 to the upper end surface of each of the first convex elements 23 (para[0043], 0.15 mm) can be around 0.7 times the distance from the upper surface of the base body 10 to the upper end surface (para[0043], 0.15mm+0.06mm=0.21mm) of each of the plurality of pin-shaped convex portions. It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness is made in a predictable art wherein the claimed range and the prior art range are so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges was virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality (MPEP2144.05. I.). However, the combination of Asada and Onodera et al does not explicitly teaches that a distance from the upper surface of the base body to an upper end surface of each of the plurality of pin-shaped convex portions is 120 µm to 180 µm. Horiuchi (‘108) teaches that it is known in the art to use a pin-shaped convex portions 9 (fig1, para[0025]) with a height (a distance between an upper surface of a base body 4 and an upper end surface of a pin-shaped convex portion, figs1,3, para[0025]) for a substrate holding member (fig1) within the range of 3 to 1000 µm (which includes a claimed range of 120 µm to 180 µm). It has been found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range is sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range (MPEP2144.05 I.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Asada and Onodera et al to use a pin-shaped convex portion with a height from 120 µm to 180 µm, as taught by Horiuchi, as such range is within a range known in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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: The subject matter of the claim(s) could either not be found or was not suggested in the prior art of record. The subject matter of claim 4 not found was a maximum diameter of the upper end surface of each of the first convex elements being larger than a maximum diameter of the upper end surface of each of the second pin-shaped convex portions; in combination with the limitations set forth in claim 4 and any of its intervening claims of the instant invention.
The originally filed specification discloses criticality of a maximum diameter of the upper end surface of each of the first convex elements being larger than a maximum diameter of the upper end surface of each of the second pin-shaped convex portions:
Para[0047] of the originally filed specification discloses that he maximum diameter of the upper end surface 22c of the first convex element is preferably larger than the maximum diameter of an upper end surface 24a of the second pin-shaped convex portion. Therefore, since a region including the two-step pins is such that a flow path space is sufficiently narrower than a flow path space of a region not including two-step pins, when a sucking operation of a substrate is performed, the flow velocity is high in the region including the two-step pins and, by decreasing the pressure, a negative pressure amount is increased. As a result, the attraction force in the region including the two-step pins is increased and it is possible to attract with good flatness even a largely bent or curved substrate.
The close prior arts, Asada (US 2009/0060688 A1) and Onodera et al (US 2018/0374739 A1) teach similar pin-shaped convex portions (Onodera et al also teaches a use of a pin-shaped convex portion with first and second convex element with different diameters). Although the prior arts of record teach similar pin-shaped convex portions, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Asada and Onodera et al to have a maximum diameter of the upper end surface of each of the first convex elements to be larger than a maximum diameter of the upper end surface of each of the second pin-shaped convex portions in combination with the limitations set forth in claim 4 and all of its intervening claims of the instant invention. Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim 4 and all of its intervening claims.
None of the prior arts of record considered as a whole, alone or in combination, teaches or renders obvious the allowable subject matter of the instant invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ishino et al (US 10,468,289 B2), Endou et al (US 2003/0090070 A1), Kosakai (US 2002/0036373 A1), Kobayashi et al (US 2003/0001103 A1), Ushimaru et al (US 11,049,758 B2), and Iwabuchi et al (US 10,755,959 B2) teach similar substrate holding members, however, none of the prior arts of record considered as a whole, alone or in combination, teaches or renders obvious the allowable subject matter of the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seahee Hong whose telephone number is (571)270-5778. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-4pm ET.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/SEAHEE HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723