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) are pending and being examined.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 10/23/2025 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)). Applicant amended claims 3, 5, 6, 8 and 15 and added new claims 21-25 and cancelled non- elected claims 16-20.
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 Raghavan et al (US 20190131161).
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.
Raghavan et al disclose a robot arm to move from one station to another and disclose plurality (6) of support points on the arm (See 110A-110F of Fig 1A).
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 the arms are of equal length.
Regarding claim 7 and 10 support pins in (pads) Taatjes et al modified by Raghavan et al could be up to 6.
Claim 8 is rejected with claim 1 being of similar scope.
Regarding claim 9 Taatjes et al modified by Raghavan et al teach the support pins (pads) contacting the wafer directly.
Regarding claim 11 Taatjes et al modified by Raghavan 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.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taatjes et al (US 6167893) in view of Raghavan et al (US 20190131161) 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 Raghavan 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 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taatjes et al (US 6167893) in view of Raghavan et al (US 20190131161) 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 Raghavan 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).
Therefore, having laser sensors disposed at different elevation corresponding to each holder in Taatjes et al modified by Raghavan et al would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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