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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on March 2, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Inventions II and III are not patentably distinct products from Invention I. Examiner finds the arguments persuasive and fully withdraws the restriction requirement submitted on December 31, 2025.
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 – 6, 11, and 15 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 recites the limitation “the chuck plate of claim 1, wherein the common vacuum port extends ..., and further comprises a plurality of vacuum holes ...” It is generally unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to require the ‘common vacuum port’ to comprise the ‘plurality of vacuum holes,’ or whether Applicant intends the ‘chuck plate’ to comprise the ‘plurality of vacuum holes.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the chuck plate of claim 1, wherein the common vacuum port extends ..., and the chuck plate further comprises a plurality of vacuum holes ...”
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the chuck plate comprises a body having the support surface and a cover plate.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to require the ‘chuck plate’ to comprise the ‘cover plate’ or whether Applicant intends the ‘body’ to comprise the ‘cover plate.’ For the purpose of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “wherein the chuck plate comprises a body and a cover plate, wherein the body has the support surface.”
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a lower surface of the body.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘lower surface of the body’ previously set forth in claim 4, or whether Applicant intends to set forth a second ‘lower surface’ which is separate and independent from the ‘lower surface’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to refer to the ‘lower surface of the body’ previously set forth.
Claim 11 recites the “a cover plate.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘cover plate’ previously set forth in claim 10, or whether Applicant intends to set forth a second ‘cover plate’ which is separate and independent from the ‘cover plate’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to refer to the ‘cover plate’ previously set forth.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a flatness of about within about 5 to about 20 microns.” Because “about” is a term of degree which is not expressly defined in the Specification, the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a flatness within 5 to 20 microns.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Each of the limitation set forth in dependent claim 11 are previously recited and required in claim 10. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 – 5, 8 – 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurer (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2001/0044217, cited in IDS) in view of Verstreken (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0130708).
As to claim 1, Gurer teaches a chuck plate for a substrate support (abstract), comprising: an upper surface defining a support surface for a substrate (figures 1 and 2, element 12 being the ‘chuck plate’ and element 20 being the ‘upper surface’; paragraphs 30 – 31) and having a coating comprising a material with less reflectivity than a base material of the chuck plate (claims 35 and 37).
However, while Gurer teaches the chuck plate being a vacuum chuck plate (figures 1 and 2, element 12; paragraph 33), Gurer does not teach the vacuum chuck plate itself. Verstreken teaches a vacuum chuck plate for a substrate support (abstract), comprising: an upper surface defining a support surface for a substrate (figure 4, element 20a being the ‘upper surface’; paragraphs 34 and 48), wherein the upper surface includes a plurality of vacuum grooves (figures 2a and 4, elements 22 being the ‘vacuum grooves’; paragraphs 35 – 36 and 41), wherein the plurality of vacuum grooves are arranged in a plurality of zones that are fluidly independent from each other along the upper surface and fluidly coupled to a common vacuum port disposed at a lower surface of the chuck plate (figures 2a and 4, bottom surface of element 40 being the ‘lower surface of the chuck plate,’ see below). Examiner notes that this can be found because “port” is commonly defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “an opening or intake or exhaust of a fluid.”
PNG
media_image1.png
393
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
424
577
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the vacuum chuck plate of Verstreken for the vacuum chuck plate of Gurer, because Verstreken teaches that such a chuck plate provides the benefit of securing semiconductor wafers (paragraphs 4 and 29), as desired by Gurer (paragraph 8).
As to claim 2, Verstreken teaches that the common vacuum port extends from the lower surface to the chuck plate to a plenum disposed in the chuck plate (figure 4, elements 10 and 24 being the ‘plenum’; paragraphs 29, 37, and 39), and the chuck plate further comprises a plurality of vacuum holes extending from the plenum to the plurality of vacuum grooves for each of the plurality of zones (figures 4 and 2a, elements 23 being the ‘plurality of vacuum holes’; paragraph 37).
As to claim 3, Verstreken teaches that the plurality of vacuum holes are linearly aligned along the plenum (figures 2a and 4, elements 23, 24, and 10).
As to claim 4, Verstreken teaches that the chuck plate comprises a body and a cover plate (figure 4, element 20 being the ‘body’ and element 40 being the ‘chuck plate’; paragraphs 30 and 48), wherein the cover plate is coupled to a lower surface of the body to define the plenum therebetween (figure 4, elements 20, 40, 25 and 10).
As to claim 5, Verstreken teaches that the plenum is partially defined by a recess disposed in the lower surface of the body (figure 4, see below), and wherein the cover plate is sized to fit within the recess (figure 4, element 42 being the part of the ‘cover plate’ which is sized to fit within the recess, see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
419
622
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 8, Verstreken teaches an embodiment in which a calibration plate is coupled to an outer sidewall of the chuck plate (figure 5, element 60 being the ‘calibration plate’; paragraph 52).
As to claim 9, Verstreken teaches that the plurality of zones consists of three zones (figure 2a, see above), and wherein the plurality of vacuum grooves associated with each of the three zones comprise an annular groove and a plurality of radial grooves extending in a radial direction from the annular groove (figure 2a, elements 22).
As to claim 10, Gurer teaches a chuck plate for a substrate support (abstract), comprising: a body having an upper surface defining a support surface for a substrate (figures 1 and 2, element 12 being the ‘body’ and element 20 being the ‘upper surface’; paragraphs 30 – 31) and having a coating comprising a material with less reflectivity than a base material of the chuck plate (claims 35 and 37).
However, while Gurer teaches the chuck plate being a vacuum chuck plate (figures 1 and 2, element 12; paragraph 33), Gurer does not teach the vacuum chuck plate itself. Verstreken teaches a vacuum chuck plate for a substrate support (abstract), comprising: a body having an upper surface defining a support surface for a substrate (figure 4, element 20 being the ‘body’ and element 20a being the ‘upper surface’; paragraphs 34 and 48), wherein the upper surface includes a plurality of vacuum grooves (figures 2a and 4, elements 22 being the ‘vacuum grooves’; paragraphs 35 – 36 and 41), wherein the plurality of vacuum grooves are arranged in a plurality of zones that are fluidly independent from each other along the upper surface (figures 2a, elements 22, see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
393
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Verstreken further teaches a cover plate coupled to a lower surface of the body to define a plenum therebetween (figure 4, element 40 being the ‘cover plate’ and elements 10 and 23 being the ‘plenum’; paragraphs 48, 29, and 39), wherein the cover plate includes a common vacuum port extending through the cover plate to the plenum (figure 4, see below). Examiner notes that this can be found because “port” is commonly defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “an opening or intake or exhaust of a fluid.”
PNG
media_image2.png
424
577
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Verstreken further teaches a plurality of vacuum holes extending from the plenum to the plurality of vacuum grooves for each of the plurality of zones (figures 2a and 4, elements 23 being the ‘plurality of vacuum holes’; paragraph 37). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the vacuum chuck plate of Verstreken for the vacuum chuck plate of Gurer, because Verstreken teaches that such a chuck plate provides the benefit of securing semiconductor wafers (paragraphs 4 and 29), as desired by Gurer (paragraph 8).
As to claim 11, the discussion of claim 10 is incorporated herein.
As to claim 13, Verstreken teaches an embodiment which comprises anti-slip guards coupled to an outer sidewall of the body and extending above the upper surface of the body and configured to prevent the substrate from slipping off the upper surface (figure 6, elements 70 being the ‘anti-slip guards’; paragraph 53). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the anti-slip guards of the chuck plate of the embodiment of figure 6 onto the chuck plate of the embodiment of figure 4, because Verstreken teaches that the anti-slip guards provide the benefit of helping to secure edges of the substrate onto the chuck plate (figure 6, elements 70; paragraph 53).
As to claim 15, while not expressly taught by Verstreken, it is the position of the Examiner that it would have been obvious to set a flatness of the upper surface of the chuck plate to 5 to 20 microns, so as to ensure the substrate becomes flat when the substrate is secured to the chuck plate, as desired by Verstreken (paragraph 16).
Claim(s) 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurer in view of Verstreken as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bailey (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0132539).
As to claim 7, while Gurer teaches the upper surface having a coating comprising a material having less reflectivity than a base material of the chuck plate, Gurer does not teach the material of the coating itself. Bailey teaches a material have anti-reflectivity properties (paragraph 321), wherein the material comprises nickel sulfate (paragraph 321), a known inorganic salt. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the anti-reflectivity coating of Gurer as nickel sulfate, as taught by Bailey, because Bailey teaches that nickel sulfate has low reflectivity (paragraph 321), as desired by Gurer (claim 37).
As to claim 14, while Gurer teaches the upper surface having a coating comprising a material having less reflectivity than a base material of the chuck plate, Gurer does not teach the material of the coating itself. Bailey teaches a material have anti-reflectivity properties (paragraph 321), wherein the material is an anodized coating comprising nickel sulfate (paragraph 321), a known inorganic salt. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the anti-reflectivity coating of Gurer as an anodized nickel sulfate, as taught by Bailey, because Bailey teaches that nickel sulfate has low reflectivity (paragraph 321), as desired by Gurer (claim 37).
Claim(s) 16 – 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0238266, cited in IDS) in view of Gurer and Verstreken.
As to claim 16, Schulze teaches a metrology chamber (abstract), comprising: an enclosure defining an interior volume therein (figure 2, element 200 being the ‘enclosure’ and ‘interior volume’; paragraph 41); a substrate support disposed in the interior volume, wherein the substrate support comprises a chuck plate (figure 2, element 206 being the ‘substrate support’ and ‘chuck plate’; paragraphs 41 – 42); and an optical inspection system disposed in the interior volume above the chuck plate (figure 2a, element 208 being the ‘optical inspection system’; paragraph 41).
While Schulze teaches the chuck plate being a rotating vacuum chuck plate (figure 2a, element 206; paragraphs 42 – 43), Schulze does not teach the rotating vacuum chuck plate itself. Gurer teaches a rotating vacuum chuck plate for a substrate support (abstract), comprising: an upper surface defining a support surface for a substrate (figures 1 and 2, element 12 being the ‘chuck plate’ and element 20 being the ‘upper surface’; paragraphs 30 – 31) and having a coating comprising a material with less reflectivity than a base material of the chuck plate (claims 35 and 37). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the rotating vacuum chuck plate of Gurer for the rotating vacuum chuck plate of Schulze, because Gurer teaches that such a plate provides the benefit of securing a semiconductor wafter to the chuck plate and securely rotating the semiconductor wafter during machining or work of the semiconductor wafer (paragraph 8), as desired by Schulze (paragraphs 2, 17, and 20).
However, while Gurer teaches the chuck plate being a vacuum chuck plate (figures 1 and 2, element 12; paragraph 33), Gurer does not teach the structure allowing for the vacuum of the chuck plate. Verstreken teaches a vacuum chuck plate for a substrate support (abstract), comprising: an upper surface defining a support surface for a substrate (figure 4, element 20a being the ‘upper surface’; paragraphs 34 and 48), wherein the upper surface includes a plurality of vacuum grooves (figures 2a and 4, elements 22 being the ‘vacuum grooves’; paragraphs 35 – 36 and 41), wherein the plurality of vacuum grooves are arranged in a plurality of zones that are fluidly independent from each other along the upper surface and fluidly coupled to a common vacuum port disposed at a lower surface of the chuck plate (figures 2a and 4, bottom surface of element 40 being the ‘lower surface of the chuck plate,’ see below). Examiner notes that this can be found because “port” is commonly defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “an opening or intake or exhaust of a fluid.”
PNG
media_image1.png
393
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
424
577
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the vacuum chuck plate of Verstreken for the vacuum chuck plate of Schulze in view of Gurer, because Verstreken teaches that such a chuck plate provides the benefit of securing semiconductor wafers (paragraphs 4 and 29), as desired by Schulze (paragraphs 2, 17, and 24).
As to claim 17, Schulze teaches that the optical inspection system comprises an infrared camera (figure 2a, element 208 being the ‘infrared camera’; paragraph 44).
As to claim 18, Verstreken teaches that the plurality of zones comprises three zones that are arrange concentrically (figure 2a, see above), and wherein the chuck plate includes a body and a cover plate coupled to the body to define a plenum therebetween, wherein the plenum comprises an elongated oval shape (figure 4, element 20 being the ‘body,’ element 40 being the ‘cover plate,’ and elements 10 and 24 being the ‘plenum’; paragraphs 29, 37, and 39).
As to claim 20, Verstreken teaches an embodiment which comprises calibration plates coupled to the chuck plate, wherein the calibration plates are configured to support a reference semiconductor die (figure 6, elements 70 being the ‘calibration plates’; paragraph 53). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the calibration plates of the chuck plate of the embodiment of figure 6 onto the chuck plate of the embodiment of figure 4, because Verstreken teaches that the calibration plates provide the benefit of helping to secure edges of the substrate onto the chuck plate (figure 6, elements 70; paragraph 53).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze in view of Gurer and Verstreken as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Bailey.
As to claim 19, Gurer teaches that the coating has a thickness of 10 microns (paragraph 34). However, while Gurer teaches the upper surface having a coating comprising a material having less reflectivity than a base material of the chuck plate, Gurer does not teach the material of the coating itself. Bailey teaches a material have anti-reflectivity properties (paragraph 321), wherein the material is an anodized coating comprising nickel sulfate (paragraph 321), a known inorganic salt. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the anti-reflectivity coating of Gurer as an anodized nickel sulfate, as taught by Bailey, because Bailey teaches that nickel sulfate has low reflectivity (paragraph 321), as desired by Gurer (claim 37).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 12 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: Regarding claim 6, Verstreken does not teach, either expressly or implicitly, that the recess defines a first floor and a second floor that is recessed from the first floor, and wherein an enclosed wall extends form the second floor toward the first floor to define the plenum therein when covered with the cover plate, as recited by claim 6
Likewise, regarding claim 12, Verstreken does not teach the body further including a cress on a lower surface thereof, wherein the recess defines an enclosed wall extending form a lowest surface of the recess, wherein the enclosed wall defines the plenum with the cover plate, and wherein an O-ring groove is disposed about the enclosed wall, as recited by claim 12.
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