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 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-3 recites “the base” and should be “the plate-shaped base”.
Claims 1-3 recites “the porous plate” and should be “the plate-shaped porous plate”.
Claim 1 recites “the lower surface” and should be “the lower surface of the plate-shaped porous plate”.
Claim 3 recites “the annular suction channels” and should be “the plurality of annular suction channels”.
Claim 3 recites “the lower suction channels” and should be “the plurality of lower suction channels”.
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 1-3 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.
Claims 1 and 2 recite “viewed in plan”. Examiner assumes the limitation is intended to mean “viewed in a plan view”, however it is unclear to the examiner if this is what the applicant intends. The written description lacks clearly redefining the claim term so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. For purpose of examination examiner interprets the limitation as “viewed in a plan view”.
Claim 2 recites “a ratio of an area of the suction channels”. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for the limitation to be a new ratio and area of the suction channels or if applicant intends for the limitation to be the same in claim 1. For purpose of examination examiner interprets the limitation as the same as claim 1 and should be “the ration of an area of the suction channels”.
Claim 3 is rejected due to being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiyamizu (4,906,011).
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 (7) 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 porous plate is placed (fig. 2), the upper surface being held in contact with a lower surface of the porous plate (Fig. 2 annotated below), the lower surface being positioned opposite the holding surface (fig. 2), wherein
the base (18) has a plurality of suction channels (Ref. 3, Fig. 2) defined therein that are exposed on the upper surface of the base (Fig. 2) and that are for transmitting a negative pressure from a suction source to the porous plate ([Col. 1, Lines 5-10] describes a negative pressure of vacuum through the porous plate (4)), and,
when the base is viewed in plan, the 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 porous plate to a sum of an area of the upper surface of the 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 porous plate is smaller in a central portion of the upper surface of the base (Fig. 2 the central portion as the inner most groove (3)) than in an outer circumferential portion of the upper surface of the 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
393
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Hiyamizu teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein, when the base is viewed in plan, a ratio of an area of the suction channels to a sum of the area of the upper surface of the base and the area of the suction channels is smaller in the central portion of the upper surface of the base than in the outer circumferential portion of the upper surface of the 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).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiyamizu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ono (4,131,267).
Regarding Claim 3, Hiyamizu teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches the suction channels that are exposed in such a manner as to be able to supply the negative pressure to the 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 base (Fig. 2) and a plurality of annular suction channels (Ref. 3, 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 (See annotated Fig. 2 below) that are defined therein beneath the annular suction channels (Fig. 2) and that extend radially in the base when the base is viewed in plan (Fig. 2), with the negative pressure being transmittable from the suction source through the hollow cylindrical suction channel to the lower suction channels (Fig. 2),
each of the annular suction channels includes a plurality of fluid communication channels (See annotated Fig. 2 below) fluidly connected to the lower suction channels along the thickness wise direction of the base (Fig. 2), 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. 2), and when the base is viewed in plan, 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 porous plate ([Col. 1, Lines 5-10]) to the sum of the area of the upper surface of the 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 porous plate is smaller in the central portion of the upper surface of the base than in the outer circumferential portion of the upper surface of the 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]).
PNG
media_image2.png
380
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wagner (5,033,538), Wagner (5,180,000), and Thompson (3,627,338) teach vacuum chucks with suction channels and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor.
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