CTNF 18/558,059 CTNF 86992 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Election/Restrictions 08-05 AIA Claim s 2 – 11, 15, and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention group (Invention Groups I – IX and XI) , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on March 2, 2026 . 08-25 AIA Applicant's election with traverse of Invention Group X (linking claim 1 and claims 12 – 14) in the reply filed on March 2, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that ‘unity of inventions’ exists between each of the Invention Groups I – XI because linking claim 1 is novel and nonobvious . This is not found persuasive because the ‘Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority’ of International Application Number PCT/EP2022/063305 states that Huber (U.S. Patent Number 4,066,249) anticipates the holding segment recited by claim 1 (Box V, Section 1). Additionally, it is further the position of the Examiner that Tsutsui (U.S. Patent Number 4,561,688) in view of Ueda (U.S. Patent Number 5,417,408) also make obvious the holding segment of claim 1, as explained in the rejection below . The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “negative pressure generating device” recited in claim 12 “first negative pressure generating device” recited in claim 13 “second negative pressure generating device” recited in claim 13 “control device” recited in claim 14 Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The limitation “negative pressure generating device” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because: (A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“device”). (B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“negative pressure generating” or ‘for generating negative pressure’). (C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), “negative pressure generating device” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a vacuum pump,’ as taught by the Specification (page 7, second paragraph), or an equivalent thereof. The limitation “first negative pressure generating device” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because: (A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“device”). (B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“negative pressure generating” or ‘for generating negative pressure’ and “for generating a first negative pressure level”). (C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), “first negative pressure generating device” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a high vacuum pump,’ as taught by the Specification (page 7, second paragraph), or an equivalent thereof. The limitation “second negative pressure generating device” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because: (A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“device”). (B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“negative pressure generating” or ‘for generating negative pressure’ and “for generating a second negative pressure level”). (C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), “second negative pressure generating device” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a low vacuum pump,’ as taught by the Specification (page 7, second paragraph), or an equivalent thereof. The limitation “control device” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because: (A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“device”). (B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“configured to control a fluid connection between one of the negative pressure generating devices and the support plate of a holding segment ...). (C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 13 and 14 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 13 recites the limitation “comprising a first negative pressure generating device ... and a second negative pressure generating device ...” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to, and further define,’ the ‘at least one negative pressure generating device’ previously set forth in claim 12, or whether Applicant intends the limitation to set forth additional ‘negative pressure generating devices,’ which are separate and independent from the ‘at least one negative pressure generating device’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “wherein the at least one negative pressure generating device comprises a first negative pressure generating device ... and a second negative pressure generating device ...” Claim 14 recites the limitation “one of the negative pressure generating devices.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the “at least one negative pressure generating devices” or whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to one of the ‘first negative pressure generating device’ and the ‘second negative pressure generating device.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “one of the first negative pressure generating device and the second negative pressure generating device.” Claim 14 further recites the limitation “a holding segment.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘holding segment’ previously set forth in claim 12, or whether Applicant intends to set forth a second ‘holding segment,’ which is separate and independent from the ‘holding segment’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to refer to the ‘holding segment’ previously set forth. 07-34-08 Regarding claim 14, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). 07-34-23 As explained above, the claim limitation “control device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the Specification provides antecedent basis for the limitation and the limitation performing the claimed function (page 4, sixth paragraph), the Specification does not sufficiently teach the structure required for the limitation to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As explained above, the limitation “control device” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As further explained above, the Specification does not teach sufficient structure for the limitation to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the limitation is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the joint inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsui (U.S. Patent Number 4,561,688) in view of Ueda (U.S. Patent Number 5,417,408) . As to claim 1, Tsutsui teaches a holding segment for a workpiece holding device (abstract), comprising: a support plate with openings (figure 1, upper portion of element 2 being the ‘support plate,’ see below; column 2, lines 58 – 61), a distribution member comprising a fluid channel (figure 1, lower portion of element 2 being the ‘distribution member,’ see below; column 2, lines 58 – 61), said distribution member being provided for fluid connection to at least one supply line (figure 1, lower portion of element 2, see below; column 3, lines 1 – 20).. PNG media_image1.png 301 944 media_image1.png Greyscale Tsutsui further teaches a plurality of valves for fluidly connecting the fluid channel of the distribution member to the openings of the support plate, wherein each of the valves can be separately tuned on/off (figure 1, elements 3a and 3b being the ‘plurality of valves’; column 2, line 60 – column 3, line 20). Examiner recognizes that Tsutsui teaches that the valves are remote from the openings and the fluid channel (figure 1, elements 2, 3a, and 3b, see above), such that the valves do not physically connect the openings and the fluid channel. However, it is the position of the Examiner that the valves of Tsutsui do fluidly connect the openings to the fluid channel, because Tsutsui expressly teaches that the valves act to control an amount of vacuum that flows through the openings and the fluid channel (column 3, lines 1 – 20), such that the vacuum flows from the fluid channel to the openings. Examiner further notes that this interpretation is consistent with the teachings of Applicant’s Specification, which clearly illustrate that the valves are separated from the fluid channel and the openings, such that the valves do not physically connect the fluid channel to the openings (figures 2a and 3, elements 36, and 36a’, and 36b’ being the ‘valves,’ elements 35a and 35a’ being the ‘fluid channel,’ and elements 31a and 31a’ being the ‘openings’). Examiner further notes that the Specification does not expressly teach the location of the valves, or whether the valves are located between the fluid channel and the openings, such that the valves physically connect the fluid channel to the openings. However, Tsutsui teaches that the support plate and the distribution member are integrally formed, rather than being separate elements. Ueda teaches a holding segment for a workpiece holding device (abstract), comprising: a support plate with openings (figure 2, element 11 being the ‘support plate’ and elements 17 being the ‘openings’; column 3, lines 29 – 31 and column 4, lines 17 – 23), and a distribution member comprising a fluid channel (figure 2, element 10 being the ‘distribution member’ and element 14 being the ‘fluid channel’; column 3, lines 29 – 30 and 42 – 45), said distribution member being provided for fluid connected to at least one supply line (figure 2, element 14, see below’; column 3, lines 55 – 59). PNG media_image2.png 340 679 media_image2.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the support plate and distribution member of Tsutsui, such that the support plate and distribution member are separate elements, as taught by Ueda, because one skilled in the art would have recognizes that a holding segment that comprises either an integral support plate and distribution member or a separate support plate and distribution member would provide the same benefit of providing a fluid connection between the fluid channel of the distribution member and the openings of the support plate, as desired by Tsutsui (column 3, lines 1 – 20). As to claim 12, Tsutsui teaches a machining tool for machining plate-shaped workpieces (abstract), comprising a holding segment according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 over Tsutsui in view of Ueda above), wherein said machine tool comprises a at least one negative pressure generating device comprising a vacuum pump (figure 1, elements 4a and 4b being the ‘negative pressure generating device’; column 2, lines 63 – 67). As to claim 13, Tsutsui teaches that the at least one negative pressure generating device comprises a first negative pressure generating device, comprising a high vacuum pump, for generating a first negative pressure level and a second negative pressure generating device, comprising a low vacuum pump, for generating a second negative pressure level (figure 1, element 4b being the ‘first negative pressure generating device’ and element 4a being the ‘second negative pressure generating device’; column 2, lines 63 – 67) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsui in view of Oeda as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Allen (U.S. Patent Number 6,446,948) . As to claim 14, Tsutsui teaches controlling a fluid connection between the first negative pressure generating device and the support plate of the holding segment by turning one of the valves on or off (figure 1, elements 3b, 1, and 3b; column 2, line 63 – column 3, line 20). However, Tsutsui does not teach the means for controlling the fluid connection. Allen teaches a machine tool for machining plate-shaped workpieces (abstract), comprising a holding segment comprising a support plate with openings (figure 9, element 91 being the ‘support plate’ and elements 93 being the ‘openings’; column 6, line 64 – column 7, line 1) and a plurality of valves fluidly connected to the openings of the support plate, wherein each of the valves can be turned on/off (figure 9, elements 95 being the ‘plurality of valves’; column 7, lines 1 – 6); and a negative pressure generating device comprising a vacuum pump (figure 9, element 97 being the ‘negative pressure generating device’; column 7, lines 3 – 7). Allen further teaches a control device configured to control a fluid connection between the negative pressure generating device and the support plate of the holding segment by turning one of the valves on or off (figure 9, element 99; column 7, lines 3 – 10). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the machine tool of Tsutsui in view of Oeda with the controller of Allen, because Allen teaches that use of such a controller allows for precise opening of the valves, which allows for holding of a variety of wafter (column 7, lines 3 – 10), as desired by Tsutsui (column 3, lines 1 – 20). 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 Application/Control Number: 18/558,059 Page 2 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/558,059 Page 3 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/558,059 Page 4 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/558,059 Page 5 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/558,059 Page 6 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/558,059 Page 7 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/558,059 Page 8 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/558,059 Page 9 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/558,059 Page 10 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/558,059 Page 12 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/558,059 Page 13 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/558,059 Page 14 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/558,059 Page 15 Art Unit: 3726