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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
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: “gripping elements” in claims 13-18 and “damping mechanism” in claim 18.
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.
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, 3, 5-12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al. (US 8596623, "Frank '623") in view of Chen et al. (US 10770335, "Chen").
1. Frank '623 teaches a device (1) for holding a wafer-shaped article (W), the device having a device body (30) comprising:
a surface configured to face a wafer-shaped article supported by the device (upper part of 30 faces wafer W, Frank '623 fig. 3), the surface having a central recessed portion (center of 30 is recessed slightly, see Frank '623 fig. 6 and 3:31-43);
first gas nozzles (33) having outlets in the surface outside the central recessed portion (Frank '623 Fig. 6); and
second gas nozzles (32) having outlets in the surface inside the central recessed portion (Frank '623 fig. 6.)
Frank does not teach that each of the second gas nozzles is perpendicular (or substantially perpendicular) to the surface.
However, Chen teaches a rotatable chuck (101) for holding a substrate (107) and including a first array of gas nozzles (109) having outlets in the surface outside a central recessed portion and angled outwards relative to the surface (Chen figs. 1-2 and 5:1-49); and a plurality of second gas nozzles (110) having outlets in the surface located more centrally and angled substantially perpendicularly to the surface (Chen figs. 1-2 and 5:1-49).
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 device of Frank '623 to incorporate the teachings from Chen regarding suitable angles for first and second arrays of gas nozzles such that each of the second gas nozzles is perpendicular (or substantially perpendicular) to the surface and each of the first gas nozzles is angled outwards relative to the surface, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one set of angles for gas nozzles in a Bernoulli chuck for another, the results of such a substitution being predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
3. Frank '623 as modified teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein each of the first gas nozzles is angled outwards relative to the surface (the elements of Chen integrated into Frank '623 as modified include a first array of angled nozzles 109, see Chen figs. 1-2 and 5:1-49).
5. Frank '623 as modified teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the device includes a gas distribution chamber in the device body (25), the gas distribution chamber being connected to the first gas nozzles and the second gas nozzles (25 is connected to 32 and 33, Frank '623 fig. 6).
6. Frank '623 as modified teaches the device according to claim 1, where a number of the first gas nozzles is greater than a number of the second gas nozzles (nozzles 33 outnumber nozzles 32, see Frank '623 fig. 2).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Frank '623 as modified teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the recessed portion is circular (central portion, like all of chuck, is circular, see Frank '623 figs. 2 and 6). Frank '623 does not teach dimensions for the depth or diameter of the recessed portion, and so does not teach that the recessed portion has a depth in the range of 0.3 mm to 2 mm or a diameter in the range of 210 mm to 250 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of Frank '623 as modified such that the recessed portion had a depth in the range of 0.3 mm to 2 mm and a diameter in the range of 210 mm to 250 mm 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, there is no disclosure in Frank '623 of any specific dimensions. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the claimed dimension, simply indicating that the recessed portions may have the claimed depth and diameter with no indication as to what purpose they serve.
9. Frank '623 as modified teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein at least some of the outlets of the first gas nozzles are arranged in a circular pattern (nozzles 33 are in a circular pattern, Frank '623 fig. 2).
10. Frank '623 as modified teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein at least some of the outlets of the second gas nozzles are arranged in a circular pattern (nozzles 32 are in a circular pattern, Frank '623 fig. 2).
11. Frank '623 as modified teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the device comprises a plurality of gripping pin assemblies (56) adapted and positioned relative to the device body for gripping the wafer-shaped article (pin assemblies 56 are located in the body, see Frank '623 figs. 6-9), wherein each of the gripping pin assemblies is rotatable between a gripping configuration in which the gripping pin assemblies grip the wafer-shaped article, and a non-gripping configuration in which the gripping pin assemblies do not grip the wafer-shaped article (pins rotate to grip a wafer, Frank '623 4:25-36).
12. Frank '623 as modified teaches the device according to claim 11, wherein the gripping pin assemblies extend through the surface outside the recessed portion (pins 56 extend upward through outside the central recessed portion, see Frank '623 fig. 6), and the outlets (33) of the first gas nozzles are located on the surface between the gripping pin assemblies (56) and the recessed portion (nozzles 33 are located between central recessed portion and gripping pin assemblies 56, see Frank '623 fig. 6).
19. Frank '623 as modified teaches a processing apparatus for processing a wafer-shaped article, the processing apparatus comprising the device according to claim 1 (Frank '623 teaches that the apparatus is intended for use in a treatment process and device, see Frank '623 claims 1-8).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank '623 in view of Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koelmel et al. (US 8057602, "Koelmel").
4. Frank '623 teaches the device according to claim 1, but does not teach that the device comprises a transparent window in the recessed portion, and the second gas nozzles include one or more gas nozzles in the transparent window.
However, Koelmel teaches a wafer-holding device (10) including a central plate (1) having plurality of apertures (7, 9, 11) for providing gas or vacuum, wherein the plate is made from a transparent mineral such as quartz or sapphire (Koelmel fig. 15 and 25:52-26:23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Frank '623 such that the recessed portion
as doing so would allow for remote optical sensing of substrate properties such as temperature through the support, (Koelmel 20:55-21:4).
Claims 13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al. (US 9130002, "Frank '002").
13. Frank '002 teaches a device (10) for holding a wafer-shaped article (W), the device comprising gripping elements (23) adapted to contact a peripheral edge of the wafer-shaped article (see Frank '002 fig. 1), the gripping elements being biased towards a closed position by one or more resilient members (coil springs 43, Frank '002 3:1-7), wherein a position at which each of the one or more resilient members is connected to a device body is adjustable (coil springs 43 would be capable of being attached at different positions, e.g. any two coil springs could be swapped; alternately, the positions where springs 43 are attached to the body may be rotated so as to stretch or compress the coil springs, which is a form of adjustment).
Frank '002 does not explicitly disclose that each of the one or more resilient members is connected to the device body via a removable adapter.
However, it has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Furthermore, “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
One of ordinary skill would infer from the disclosure of Frank '002 and a general understanding of dynamic mechanical systems that the springs would eventually need replacement. To facilitate such replacement, one of ordinary skill would infer that the springs should be removably attached to the body by means of a simple mechanical connection such as a threaded pin configured to have the loop commonly found at the end of a coil spring placed around it, an eye bolt configured to engage with a coil spring loop, or a related method of attachment. Such a connection would be connected to the device body at a surface of the device body and connected to the spring at a position vertically displaced relative to the device body, so as to avoid excessive rubbing, which would shorten the useful life of a spring and the device body.
For these reasons, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Frank '002 such that each of the one or more resilient members is connected to the device body via a removable adapter, as such a modification would simplify the act of replacing parts and performing related maintenance on the device.
15. Frank '002 as modified teaches the device according to claim 13, wherein the removable adaptor is connected to the device body at a first position relative to the device body and is connected to the resilient member at a second position relative to the device body.
As noted in rejection of claim 13 above, one of ordinary skill would infer from the disclosure of Frank '002 and a general understanding of dynamic mechanical systems that the springs would eventually need replacement. To facilitate such replacement, one of ordinary skill would infer that the springs should be removably attached to the body by means of a simple mechanical connection such as a threaded pin configured to have the loop commonly found at the end of a coil spring placed around it, an eye bolt configured to engage with a coil spring loop, etc. Such a connection would be connected to the device body at a surface of the device body and connected to the spring at a position vertically displaced relative to the device body, so as to avoid excessive rubbing, which would shorten the useful life of a spring and device body at a location adjacent the spring.
For these reasons, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Frank '002 such that the removable adaptor is connected to the device body at a first position relative to the device body and is connected to the resilient member at a second position relative to the device body. Such a modification would simplify the act of replacing parts and performing related maintenance on the device.
16. Frank '002 as modified teaches the device according to claim 13, wherein: each of the gripping elements is rotatable between a gripping configuration in which the gripping elements grip the wafer-shaped article, and a non-gripping configuration in which the gripping elements do not grip the wafer-shaped article (pins 23 rotate to and away from the wafer to grip it, Frank '002 2:47-55);
the device comprises a first gear (30) that is coupled to the gripping elements to drive rotation of the gripping elements (gear 30 drives pins 23, Frank '002 fig. 2 and 3:1-7); and
each of the one or more resilient members is connected to the first gear (springs 43 are coupled to 30, see Frank '002 fig. 2 and 3:1-7).
17. Frank '002 as modified teaches the device according to claim 16, wherein each of the gripping elements comprises a second gear that is meshed with the first gear (pin assemblies 23 include toothed gears at a lower portion, see Frank '002 fig. 2 and 2:60-67).
18. Frank '002 as modified teaches the device according to claim 13, wherein the device comprises at least one damping mechanism (51) that controls a force with which the clamping elements impact the peripheral edge of the wafer-shaped article when moving to the closed position (Frank '002 3:23-47 and 4:3-14).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 May, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation was that of a simple substitution of one set of orientations for another to obtain predictable results, which was recognized in KSR as an acceptable motivation.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's argument that it would not have made sense for one of ordinary skill to import the angle configuration from Chen into the device Frank ‘623, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding the rejection of clam 13, applicant argues that there would have been no motivation to add removable adapters, absent hindsight bias. However, as noted in the rejection above, “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. As noted in the rejection, an understanding of mechanical wear and maintainability would make it obvious for one of ordinary skill to modify the device of Frank ’002 to include removable adapters. Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that such a modification would not provide the advantages of the claimed invention, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the ability to change a biasing force by adjusting a length of the resilient members) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
For these reasons, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571)-272-4475. 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.
/J.R.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights