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
Claims 1 and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the suction channels” that should be “the plurality of suction channels”.
Claim 17 recites “the fluid communication channels” should be “the plurality of fluid communication channels”.
Claim 18 recites “the loser suction channels” that should be “the plurality of lower suction channels”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiyamizu (4,906,011) in view of Kinoshita (5,534,073).
Regarding Claim 1, Hiyamizu teaches A chuck table (Fig. 2) for holding a workpiece (Ref. 7, Fig. 2) under suction thereon ([Col. 1, Lines 5-10]), the chuck table comprising:
a plate-shaped porous plate (Ref. 4, Fig. 2) having a holding surface (See Fig. 2 annotated below) for holding the workpiece under suction thereon ([Col. 1, Lines 5-10]); and
a plate-shaped base (Ref. 1, Fig. 2) having an upper surface (Ref. 6, Fig. 2) on which the plate-shaped porous plate is placed (fig. 2), the upper surface being held in contact with a lower surface of the plate-shaped porous plate (Fig. 2 annotated below), the lower surface of the plate-shaped porous plate being positioned opposite the holding surface (fig. 2),
wherein the plate-shaped base has a plurality of suction channels (Ref. 3, Fig. 2) defined therein that are exposed on the upper surface of the plate-shaped base (Fig. 2) and that are for transmitting a negative pressure from a suction source to the plate- shaped porous plate ([Col. 1, Lines 5-10] describes a negative pressure of vacuum through the porous plate (4)), and,
when the plate-shaped base is viewed in plan view (Fig. 2), the plate- shaped base is configurable so that a ratio of an area of the suction channels that are exposed in such a manner as to be able to supply a negative pressure to the plate-shaped porous plate to a sum of an area of the upper surface of the plate-shaped base (Fig. 2, [Col. 1, Lines 5-10]) and the area of the suction channels that are exposed in such a manner as to be able to supply the negative pressure to the plate-shaped porous plate is smaller in a central portion of the upper surface of the plate-shaped base (Fig. 2 the central portion as the inner most groove (3)) than in an outer circumferential portion of the upper surface of the plate-shaped base (Fig. 2 shows two rings as the outer circumferential portion, examiner notes due to the outer circumferential portion having more grooves and groove area they would have more negative pressure than the central portion), and
wherein the suction channels comprise a first suction channels (Ref. 3, Fig. 2, inner most channel) formed in the central portion (Fig. 2) and a second set of suction channels (Ref. 3, Fig. 2, outer most channels) formed in the outer circumferential portion (Fig. 2) and separated from each other by second intervals (Fig. 2).
Hiyamizu fails to explicitly teach a first set of suction channels formed in the central portion and separated from each other by first intervals and a second set of suction channels formed in the outer circumferential portion and separated from each other by second intervals are approximately 1/3 to ½ of the first intervals. Kinoshita teaches a chuck table for holding a workpiece under suction using suction channels and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor. Kinoshita teaches a plurality of suction channels (Ref. 107-108, Fig. 11-12) comprising a first set of suction channels (Ref. 108, Fig. 11-12) formed in the central portion (Fig. 1) separated by first intervals (Fig. 11) and a second set of suction channels (Ref. 107, Fig. 11-12) separated by second intervals (Fig. 11) wherein the first intervals are larger than the second intervals (Figs. 11 and 12 of Kinoshita shows that the first intervals are larger than the second intervals). Therefore, given the suggestion of Kinoshita having the first intervals are larger than the second intervals, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second intervals of Hiyamizu to have the second intervals are approximately 1/3 to ½ of the first intervals since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Hiyamizu would not operate differently with the claimed interval lengths since each channel is intended to be separated by an interval and the device would function appropriately having the claimed interval range. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the second intervals are smaller than the first intervals that are within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0016]).
PNG
media_image1.png
393
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Hiyamizu as modified teaches the limitation of claim 1, as described above, and Hiyamizu further teaches when the plate-shaped base is viewed in plain view (Fig. 2), the ratio of the area of the suction channels to the sum of the area of the upper surface of the plate-shaped base and the area of the suction channels is smaller in the central portion of the upper surface of the plate-shaped base than in the outer circumferential portion of the upper surface of the plate-shaped base (Fig. 2 examiner notes due to the outer circumferential portion being the outer two grooves and the central portion is a singular groove, the area of the suction areas is smaller in the central portion than outer portion).
Regarding Claim 4, Hiyamizu as modified teaches the limitation of claim 1, as described above, and Hiyamizu further teaches wherein:
each of the suction channels of the first set of suction channels comprises an annular channel (Fig. 2 shows an annular channel); and
each of the suction channels of the second set of suction channels comprises an annular channel (Fig. 2 shows an annular channel).
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiyamizu as modified by Kinoshita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thompson (3,627,338).
Regarding Claim 5, Hiyamizu as modified by Kinoshita teaches the limitation of claim 1, as described above, and Hiyamizu further teaches the suction channels of the first set are each of a first width (Fig. 2 shows the suctions channels to have some width) and the suction channels of the second set are each of a second width (Fig. 2 shows the suctions channels to have some width). Hiyamizu fails to explicitly teach wherein the first width is different than the second width. Thompson teaches a chuck table for holding a workpiece under suction using suction channels and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor. Thompson further teaches the suction channels of the first set (Ref. 24, Fig. 1) are each of a first width (Fig. 1) and the suction channels of the second set (Ref. 20, Fig. 1) are each of a second width (Fig. 1), wherein the first width is different than the second width ([Col. 2, Lines 31-33] describes the channels having the first width being 2x greater than the second widths). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to a first width and a second width, as taught by Hiyamizu as modified, to be different widths, as taught by Thompson, since such a modification would yield the predictable result of providing suction to hold a workpiece and to provide a further benefit of allowing a sealing member to sit with the channel to increase suction between a workpiece and the chuck ([Col. 2, Lines 13-45]).
Regarding Claim 6, Hiyamizu as modified teaches the limitation of claim 1, as described above, and Hiyamizu further teaches each of the suction channels of the first set of suction channels comprises an annular channel (Fig. 2 shows an annular channel);
each of the suction channels of the second set of suction channels comprises an annular channel (Fig. 2 shows an annular channel); and
the suction channels of the first set are each of a first width (Fig. 2 shows the suctions channels to have some width) and the suction channels of the second set are each of a second width (Fig. 2 shows the suctions channels to have some width).
Hiyamizu fails to explicitly teach wherein the first width is different than the second width. Thompson teaches a chuck table for holding a workpiece under suction using suction channels and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor. Thompson further teaches the suction channels of the first set (Ref. 24, Fig. 1) are each of a first width (Fig. 1) and the suction channels of the second set (Ref. 20, Fig. 1) are each of a second width (Fig. 1), wherein the first width is different than the second width ([Col. 2, Lines 31-33] describes the channels having the first width being 2x greater than the second widths). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to a first width and a second width, as taught by Hiyamizu as modified, to be different widths with a first width twice as large as a second width, as taught by Thompson, since such a modification would yield the predictable result of providing suction to hold a workpiece and to provide a further benefit of allowing a sealing member to sit with the channel to increase suction between a workpiece and the chuck ([Col. 2, Lines 13-45]).
Regarding Claim 7, Hiyamizu as modified teaches the limitation of claim 5, as described above, and given the teachings of Thompsons of the first width is twice as large as the second width, Thompson further teaches wherein the first width is greater than the second width ([Col. 2, Lines 31-33] describes the channel having width twice the size as the other). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to a first width and a second width, as taught by Hiyamizu as modified, to be different widths with a first width twice as large as a second width, as taught by Thompson, since such a modification would yield the predictable result of providing suction to hold a workpiece and to provide a further benefit of allowing a sealing member to sit with the channel to increase suction between a workpiece and the chuck ([Col. 2, Lines 13-45]).
Regarding Claim 8, Hiyamizu as modified teaches the limitation of claim 6, as described above, and given the teachings of Thompsons of the first width is twice as large as the second width, Thompson further teaches wherein the first width is greater than the second width ([Col. 2, Lines 31-33] describes the channel having width twice the size as the other). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to a first width and a second width, as taught by Hiyamizu as modified, to be different widths with a first width twice as large as a second width, as taught by Thompson, since such a modification would yield the predictable result of providing suction to hold a workpiece and to provide a further benefit of allowing a sealing member to sit with the channel to increase suction between a workpiece and the chuck ([Col. 2, Lines 13-45]).
Regarding Claim 9, Hiyamizu as modified teaches the limitation of claim 5, as described above, and given the teachings of Thompsons of the first width is twice as large as the second width, Thompson further teaches wherein the first width is between 1.5 and 2.0 times greater than the second width ([Col. 2, Lines 31-33] describes the channel having width twice the size as the other). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to a first width and a second width, as taught by Hiyamizu as modified, to be different widths with a first width twice as large as a second width, as taught by Thompson, since such a modification would yield the predictable result of providing suction to hold a workpiece and to provide a further benefit of allowing a sealing member to sit with the channel to increase suction between a workpiece and the chuck ([Col. 2, Lines 13-45]).
Regarding Claim 10, Hiyamizu as modified teaches the limitation of claim 6, as described above, and given the teachings of Thompsons of the first width is twice as large as the second width, Thompson further teaches wherein the first width is between 1.5 and 2.0 times greater than the second width ([Col. 2, Lines 31-33] describes the channel having width twice the size as the other). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to a first width and a second width, as taught by Hiyamizu as modified, to be different widths with a first width twice as large as a second width, as taught by Thompson, since such a modification would yield the predictable result of providing suction to hold a workpiece and to provide a further benefit of allowing a sealing member to sit with the channel to increase suction between a workpiece and the chuck ([Col. 2, Lines 13-45]).
Claims 3 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiyamizu (4,906,011, previously presented) in view of Ono (4,131,267) and Yoshida (2020/0101584).
Regarding Claim 3, Hiyamizu teaches a chuck table (Fig. 2) for holding a workpiece (Ref. 7, Fig. 2) under suction thereon ([Col. 1, Lines 5-10]), the chuck table comprising:
a plate-shaped porous plate (Ref. 4, Fig. 2) having a holding surface (See Fig. 2 annotated below) for holding the workpiece under suction thereon ([Col. 1, Lines 5-10]); and
a plate-shaped base (Ref. 1, Fig. 2) having an upper surface (Ref. 6, Fig. 2) on which the plate-shaped porous plate is placed (fig. 2), the upper surface being held in contact with a lower surface of the plate-shaped porous plate (Fig. 2 annotated below), the lower surface of the plate-shaped porous plate being positioned opposite the holding surface (fig. 2),
wherein the plate-shaped base has a plurality of suction channels (Ref. 3, Fig. 2) defined therein that are exposed on the upper surface of the plate-shaped base and that are for transmitting a negative pressure from a suction source to the plate- shaped porous plate ([Col. 1, Lines 5-10] describes a negative pressure of vacuum through the porous plate (4)), and,
when the plate-shaped base is viewed in plan view (Fig. 2), the plate- shaped base is configurable so that a ratio of an area of the suction channels that are exposed in such a manner as to be able to supply a negative pressure to the plate-shaped porous plate to a sum of an area of the upper surface of the plate-shaped base (Fig. 2, [Col. 1, Lines 5-10]) and the area of the suction channels that are exposed in such a manner as to be able to supply the negative pressure to the plate-shaped porous plate is smaller in a central portion of the upper surface of the plate-shaped base (Fig. 2 the central portion as the inner most groove (3)) than in an outer circumferential portion of the upper surface of the plate-shaped base (Fig. 2 shows two rings as the outer circumferential portion, examiner notes due to the outer circumferential portion having more grooves and groove area they would have more negative pressure than the central portion), and
wherein:
the suction channels that are exposed in such a manner as to be able to supply the negative pressure to the plate-shaped porous plate (Fig. 2, [Col. 1, Lines 5-10]) include a hollow cylindrical suction channel (Ref. 2, Fig. 2) that is defined diametrically centrally in the plate-shaped base (Fig. 2),
the plate-shaped base further includes a plurality of lower suction channels (See annotated Fig. 2 below) that are defined therein beneath the plurality of annular suction channels (Fig. 2) and that extend radially in the plate-shaped base when the plate-shaped base is viewed in plan view (Fig. 2), with the negative pressure being transmittable from the suction source through the hollow cylindrical suction channel to the plurality of lower suction channels (Fig. 2),
each of the plurality of annular suction channels includes a plurality of fluid communication channels (See annotated Fig. 2 below) fluidly connected to the plurality of lower suction channels along the thickness wise direction of the plate-shaped base (Fig. 2)such that the plurality of fluid communication channels are open towards the upper surface of the plate-shaped base (Fig. 2), and
all of the fluid communication channels in each of one or more of the plurality of annular suction channels that are positioned in the central portion of the upper surface of the plate-shaped base (Fig. 2), and
when the plate-shaped base is viewed in plan view, the ratio of the area of the suction channels that are exposed in such a manner as to be able to supply the negative pressure to the plate-shaped porous plate ([Col. 1, Lines 5-10]) to the sum of the area of the upper surface of the plate-shaped base and the area of the suction channels that are exposed in such a manner as to be able to supply the negative pressure to the plate-shaped porous plate is smaller in the central portion of the upper surface of the plate-shaped base than in the outer circumferential portion of the upper surface of the plate-shaped base (Fig. 2 examiner notes due to the outer circumferential portion being the outer two grooves and the central portion is a singular groove, the area of the suction areas is smaller in the central portion than outer portion).
Hiyamizu fails to explicitly teach a hollow cylindrical suction channel that is defined diametrically centrally in the base and that extends axially through the base from the upper surface thereof to a lower surface of the base along a thickness wise direction of the base. Ono teaches a chuck table with a plate shaped base and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Ono further teaches a chuck table (Fig. 1&2) for holding a workpiece (Ref. 1, Fig. 1) under suction thereon ([Col. 1, Lines 6-8]), the chuck table comprising:
a plate-shaped base (Ref. 4, Fig. 1) having an upper surface (Ref. 5, Fig. 3), wherein
the base (4) has a plurality of suction channels (Ref. 6, 8, & 11, Fig. 2-3, [Col. 2, Lines 19-26]) defined therein that are exposed on the upper surface of the base (Fig. 3) and that are for transmitting a negative pressure from a suction source to the porous plate (Col. 2, Lines 19-26] describes transmitting a vacuum source to the plate via the passages),
wherein the suction channels that are exposed including a hollow cylindrical suction channel (Ref. 8a, Fig. 3) that is defined diametrically centrally in the base (fig. 2-3) and that extends axially through the base from the upper surface (5) thereof to a lower surface of the base along a thickness wise direction of the base (Fig. 3), and a plurality of annular suction channels (Ref. 6b-g, Fig. 2) defined in the base concentrically around the hollow cylindrical suction channel (Fig. 2),
the base further includes a plurality of lower suction channels (Ref. 11, Fig. 3) that are defined therein beneath the annular suction channels (fig. 2-3) and that extend radially in the base when the base is viewed in plan (fig. 2-3), with the negative pressure being transmittable from the suction source through the hollow cylindrical suction channel to the lower suction channels (Fig. 3, [Col. 1, Lines 6-8]),
each of the annular suction channels (6b-g) includes a plurality of fluid communication channels (Ref. 8b-g, Fig. 2-3) fluidly connected to the lower suction channels along the thickness wise direction of the base (Fig. 3), and
at least either all the fluid communication channels in each of one or more of the annular suction channels that are positioned in the central portion of the upper surface of the base or the hollow cylindrical suction channel is sealed (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plate and suction channels, as taught by Hiyamizu, with the plate and suction channels with a hollow cylindrical suction channel, as taught by Ono, since such an apparatus would yield the predictable result of holding a substrate via suction and to allow substrates of different diameters to be held in the suction area simply and quickly without replacing parts ([Col. 1, Lines 45-49]).
Hiyamizu fails to explicitly teach all of the fluid communication channels are configured and arranged to be individually selectively sealed by sealing members. Yoshida teaches a vacuum chuck for holding a workpiece under suction using suction channels and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor. Yoshida teaches all of the fluid communication channels (Ref. 120, fig. 1) are configured and arranged to be individually selectively sealed ([0023] describes sealing fluid channels) by sealing members (Ref. 130, Fig. 1, [0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the fluid communication channels, as taught by Hiyamizu as modified, with a sealing member to seal the fluid communication channels, as taught by Yoshida, to restrict airflow from certain fluid communication channels when not in use ([0023]) thereby providing greater suction to the other channels.
PNG
media_image1.png
393
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
380
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, Hiyamizu as modified teaches the limitation of claim 3, as described above, and given the teachings of the sealing members of Yoshida, Yoshida further teaches the fluid communication channels (120) are each internally threaded ([0023] describes the channels (120) are threaded); and
the sealing members are each externally threaded ([0023] describes a threaded screws), and are configured and arranged to be seated within the fluid communication channels (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 18, Hiyamizu as modified teaches the limitation of claim 3, as described above, and given the teachings of the sealing members of Yoshida, Yoshida further teaches wherein the sealing members are configured and arranged to be extend above the loser suction channels (Fig. 2A).
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiyamizu (4,906,011,previously presented) in view of Thompson (3,627,338).
Regarding Claim 11, Hiyamizu teaches A chuck table (Fig. 2) for holding a workpiece (Ref. 7, Fig. 2) under suction thereon ([Col. 1, Lines 5-10]), the chuck table comprising:
a plate-shaped porous plate (Ref. 4, Fig. 2) plate having a holding surface (See Fig. 2 annotated below) for holding the workpiece under suction thereon ([Col. 1, Lines 5-10]); and
a plate-shaped base (Ref. 1, Fig. 2) having an upper surface (Ref. 6, Fig. 2) on which the plate-shaped porous plate is placed (fig. 2), the upper surface being held in contact with a lower surface of the plate-shaped porous plate (Fig. 2 annotated below), the lower surface of the plate-shaped porous plate being positioned opposite the holding surface,
wherein:
the plate-shaped base has a plurality of suction channels (Ref. 3, Fig. 2) defined therein that are exposed on the upper surface of the plate-shaped base (Fig. 2) and that are for transmitting a negative pressure from a suction source to the plate-shaped porous plate ([Col. 1, Lines 5-10] describes a negative pressure of vacuum through the porous plate (4)),
when the plate-shaped base is viewed in plain view (Fig. 2), the plate-shaped base is configurable so that a ratio of an area of the suction channels that are exposed in such a manner as to be able to supply a negative pressure to the plate-shaped porous plate to a sum of an area of the upper surface of the plate-shaped base (Fig. 2, [Col. 1, Lines 5-10]) and the area of the suction channels that are exposed in such a manner as to be able to supply the negative pressure to the plate- shaped porous plate is smaller in a central portion of the upper surface of the plate-shaped base (Fig. 2 the central portion as the inner most groove (3)) than in an outer circumferential portion of the upper surface of the plate-shaped base (Fig. 2 shows two outermost rings as the outer circumferential portion, examiner notes due to the outer circumferential portion having more grooves and groove area they would have more negative pressure than the central portion), and
wherein the suction channels comprise a first suction channel (Ref. 3, Fig. 2, inner most channel) formed in the central portion (Fig. 2) and a second set of suction channels (Ref. 3, Fig. 2, outer most channels) formed in the outer circumferential portion (Fig. 2), and
wherein the suction channels of the first set are each of a first width (Fig. 2 shows the suctions channels to have some width) and the suction channels of the second set are each of a second width (Fig. 2 shows the suctions channels to have some width).
Hiyamizu as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the first width is different than the second width. Thompson teaches a chuck table for holding a workpiece under suction using suction channels and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor. Thompson further teaches the suction channels of the first set (Ref. 24, Fig. 1) are each of a first width (Fig. 1) and the suction channels of the second set (Ref. 20, Fig. 1) are each of a second width (Fig. 1), wherein the first width is different than the second width ([Col. 2, Lines 31-33] describes the channels having the first width being 2x greater than the second widths). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to a first width and a second width, as taught by Hiyamizu as modified, to be different widths with a first width twice as large as a second width, as taught by Thompson, since such a modification would yield the predictable result of providing suction to hold a workpiece and to provide a further benefit of allowing a sealing member to sit with the channel to increase suction between a workpiece and the chuck ([Col. 2, Lines 13-45]).
PNG
media_image1.png
393
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Hiyamizu as modified teaches the limitation of claim 11, as described above, and Hiyamizu further teaches each of the suction channels of the first set of suction channels comprises an annular channel (Fig. 2 shows an annular channel); and
each of the suction channels of the second set of suction channels comprises an annular channel (Fig. 2 shows an annular channel).
Regarding Claim 13, Hiyamizu as modified teaches the limitation of claim 11, as described above, and given the teachings of Thompsons of the first width is twice as large as the second width, Thompson further teaches wherein the first width is greater than the second width ([Col. 2, Lines 31-33] describes the channel having width twice the size as the other). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to a first width and a second width, as taught by Hiyamizu as modified, to be different widths with a first width twice as large as a second width, as taught by Thompson, since such a modification would yield the predictable result of providing suction to hold a workpiece and to provide a further benefit of allowing a sealing member to sit with the channel to increase suction between a workpiece and the chuck ([Col. 2, Lines 13-45]).
Regarding Claim 14, Hiyamizu as modified teaches the limitation of claim 11, as described above, and given the teachings of Thompsons of the first width is twice as large as the second width, Thompson further teaches wherein the first width is between 1.5 and 2.0 times greater than the second width ([Col. 2, Lines 31-33] describes the channel having width twice the size as the other). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to a first width and a second width, as taught by Hiyamizu as modified, to be different widths with a first width twice as large as a second width, as taught by Thompson, since such a modification would yield the predictable result of providing suction to hold a workpiece and to provide a further benefit of allowing a sealing member to sit with the channel to increase suction between a workpiece and the chuck ([Col. 2, Lines 13-45]).
Regarding Claim 15, Hiyamizu as modified teaches the limitation of claim 12, as described above, and given the teachings of Thompsons of the first width is twice as large as the second width, Thompson further teaches wherein the first width is greater than the second width ([Col. 2, Lines 31-33] describes the channel having width twice the size as the other). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to a first width and a second width, as taught by Hiyamizu as modified, to be different widths with a first width twice as large as a second width, as taught by Thompson, since such a modification would yield the predictable result of providing suction to hold a workpiece and to provide a further benefit of allowing a sealing member to sit with the channel to increase suction between a workpiece and the chuck ([Col. 2, Lines 13-45]).
Regarding Claim 16, Hiyamizu as modified teaches the limitation of claim 12, as described above, and given the teachings of Thompsons of the first width is twice as large as the second width, Thompson further teaches wherein the first width is between 1.5 and 2.0 times greater than the second width ([Col. 2, Lines 31-33] describes the channel having width twice the size as the other). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to a first width and a second width, as taught by Hiyamizu as modified, to be different widths with a first width twice as large as a second width, as taught by Thompson, since such a modification would yield the predictable result of providing suction to hold a workpiece and to provide a further benefit of allowing a sealing member to sit with the channel to increase suction between a workpiece and the chuck ([Col. 2, Lines 13-45]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claim are acknowledged. Examiner has withdrawn the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections and claim objections. However, new claim objections were found in the new claims.
Applicant's arguments filed 11 May, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite sets of suction channels that are separated by intervals thereby changing the scope of the claim necessitating a new grounds of rejection and reinterpretation of the prior art. Examiner has applied Hiyamizu in view of Kinoshita to the 35 USC 103 rejection above Kinoshita teaches a plurality of suction channels (Ref. 107-108, Fig. 11-12) comprising a first set of suction channels (Ref. 108, Fig. 11-12) formed in the central portion (Fig. 1) separated by first intervals (Fig. 11) and a second set of suction channels (Ref. 107, Fig. 11-12) separated by second intervals (Fig. 11) wherein the first intervals are larger than the second intervals (Figs. 11 and 12 of Kinoshita shows that the first intervals are larger than the second intervals). Therefore, given the suggestion of Kinoshita having the first intervals are larger than the second intervals, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second intervals of Hiyamizu to have the second intervals are approximately 1/3 to ½ of the first intervals since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Hiyamizu would not operate differently with the claimed interval lengths since each channel is intended to be separated by an interval and the device would function appropriately having the claimed interval range. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the second intervals are smaller than the first intervals that are within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0016]).
Applicant has amended claim 3 to have the fluid communication channels to selectively seal by sealing members thereby changing the scope of the claim necessitating a new grounds of rejection and reinterpretation of the prior art. Examiner has applied Hiyamizu in view of Ono in view of Yoshida to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Ono has been used to teach wherein the suction channels that are exposed including a hollow cylindrical suction channel (Ref. 8a, Fig. 3) that is defined diametrically centrally in the base (fig. 2-3) and that extends axially through the base from the upper surface (5) thereof to a lower surface of the base along a thickness wise direction of the base (Fig. 3), and a plurality of annular suction channels (Ref. 6b-g, Fig. 2) defined in the base concentrically around the hollow cylindrical suction channel (Fig. 2),
the base further includes a plurality of lower suction channels (Ref. 11, Fig. 3) that are defined therein beneath the annular suction channels (fig. 2-3) and that extend radially in the base when the base is viewed in plan (fig. 2-3), with the negative pressure being transmittable from the suction source through the hollow cylindrical suction channel to the lower suction channels (Fig. 3, [Col. 1, Lines 6-8]),
each of the annular suction channels (6b-g) includes a plurality of fluid communication channels (Ref. 8b-g, Fig. 2-3) fluidly connected to the lower suction channels along the thickness wise direction of the base (Fig. 3), and
at least either all the fluid communication channels in each of one or more of the annular suction channels that are positioned in the central portion of the upper surface of the base or the hollow cylindrical suction channel is sealed (Fig. 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plate and suction channels, as taught by Hiyamizu, with the plate and suction channels with a hollow cylindrical suction channel, as taught by Ono, since such an apparatus would yield the predictable result of holding a substrate via suction and to allow substrates of different diameters to be held in the suction area simply and quickly without replacing parts ([Col. 1, Lines 45-49]).
While, Yoshida teaches all of the fluid communication channels (Ref. 120, fig. 1) are configured and arranged to be individually selectively sealed ([0023] describes sealing fluid channels) by sealing members (Ref. 130, Fig. 1, [0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the fluid communication channels, as taught by Hiyamizu as modified, with a sealing member to seal the fluid communication channels, as taught by Yoshida, to restrict airflow from certain fluid communication channels when not in use ([0023]) thereby providing greater suction to the other channels.
Conclusion
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 DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
