DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (11/17/2023), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (1-15 and 21-25) were examined in a Non-Final on 12/10/2025. This office action is in response to Applicants submission of 4/9/2026. Claims 1-15, 21-23 and 26-27 are pending and being examined.
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 27 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 27 is unclear since first laser is not disclosed to monitor the pad and thus not relevant to alarm. The second laser however, when interrupted indicated usable pad and a situation of no alarm. The claim recited opposite.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taatjes et al (US 6167893) in view of Kishimoto et al (US 20080254224).
Taatjes et al disclose a chuck assembly (10),
comprising: a hub (102);
a plurality of arms (104A, 104B and 104C) mounted to the hub, each arm extending outwardly from the hub, each arm having a proximal end adjacent the hub and a distal end remote from the hub; and
a plurality of holders (112A-112C), each holder mounted at the distal end of each respective arm, each holder having support pins configured to support a wafer (110A-110C).
Taatjes et al do not disclose plurality of support pins for each holder.
It is however noted that, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that plurality of support pins would help secure the substrate better than single support pins specially when the substrate moves or rotates as in Taatjes and also in the claimed invention.
Kishimoto et al disclose a rotatable substrate support including a pair (S, F) of support pins for each one portion of three support portions of support points on the arm (See Fig 3).
Therefore, having more than one support pins on each holder in Taatjes et al would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2 distances to the hub are of equal length.
Regarding claim 7 and 10 support pins in (pads) Taatjes et al modified by Kishimoto et al is 2.
Claim 8 amended in the latest response appear to recite the T structure including pair of pads and is rejected with claim 1 being of similar scope.
Regarding claim 9 Taatjes et al modified by Kishimoto et al teach the support pins (pads) contacting the wafer directly.
Regarding claim 11 Taatjes et al modified by Kishimoto et al teach the support pins (pads) being distant to each other.
Regarding claim 12 distance could be adjusted depending upon the number of pads per holder. This would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art. From Fig 4, the distance appears to be greater than diameter of the pads.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taatjes et al (US 6167893) in view of Kishimoto et al (US 20080254224) as applied to claims 1 and 8 and further in view of Richard J. Kent (US 20130160591).
Regarding claims 3 and 13 the support pins (pads) are not disclosed by Taatjes et al modified by Kishimoto et al to comprise FFKM (per-fluoro-elastomer) material.
Pins (pads) taught by Kent could be of FFKM (per-fluoro-elastomer) (Para 81) material in order for stability and prevent damage to substrate.
Therefore, having support pins on each holder in Taatjes et al, comprise FFKM (per-fluoro-elastomer) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 4-6, 14-15, 21-23, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taatjes et al (US 6167893) in view of Kishimoto et al (US 20080254224) as applied to claims 1 and 8 and further in view of Kim (US 20240343434) and Cho et al (US 20190043744)
These claims recite monitoring of the pins specially as regards wear condition and require two levels for laser sensors including a transmitter and corresponding laser receiver.
Taatjes et al modified by Kishimoto et al do not disclose such an arrangement.
Kim teaches using laser sensor to monitor abrasion of pad attached to moving part (Para 23) and Cho et al teach monitoring of the vertical position of support pins using plurality of laser sensors and receivers disposed in different positions and elevations as desired (Para 41-42, 44 and Fig 4B).
Regarding claim 21 as understood from specification and Fig 5a and 5B second laser and receiver pair appears to be situated to monitor the condition of the pad. The first laser pair situate at higher elevation does not appear to be interrupted in either fig 5A or 5B.
It is noted that Kim teaches monitoring the abrasion of the pad. Cho discloses two pairs of laser transmitter and receivers.
Therefore, having laser sensors disposed at different elevation corresponding to each holder in Taatjes et al modified by Kishimoto et al would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 26 as in claim 8 the pair of pads would make a T like structure with respect to a line joining to the hub center as in Kishimoto et al.
Regarding claim 27 operation of first laser is unclear. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art not to have alarm when pads are not worn
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Siebert et al (US 20050031497) discloses similar apparatus to hold a substrate with a hub and three arms attached to holders.
Mito (US 20020106445) also discloses similar apparatus to hold a substrate with a hub and plurality of arms attached to holders.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 5712721435. 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.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights