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.
Specification
The amendment filed 20 December, 2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The incorporation by reference of the International Patent Application No. PCT/EP2022/067050 and of the Great Britain Patent Application No. GB 2109051.9 is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 22 June, 2022, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore the specification amendment of 20 December, 2023 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 § 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 3 and 17 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 3 recites the limitation “wherein each of the first gas nozzles is angled outwards relative to the perpendicular to the surface”. It is unclear what is meant by “relative to the perpendicular to the surface”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the first gear”. Claim 17 depends from claim 15, while the limitation of “the first gear” is only introduced in claim 16. Consequently, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, claim 17 will be treated as depending from claim 16.
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, 5-6, 9-12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frank et al. (US 8596623, "Frank '623").
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.)
5. Frank '623 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 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).
9. Frank '623 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 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 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 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 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).
Claims 13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by 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).
16. Frank '002 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 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 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).
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 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank '623.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Frank '623 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 modify the device of Frank '623 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, [explain why device would not operate differently]. 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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank '623 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 10770335, "Chen").
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Frank '623 teaches the device according to claim 1, but is silent as to the specific angles desired for each of the groups of gas nozzles, and therefore does not teach that each of the second gas nozzles is perpendicular (or substantially perpendicular) to the surface or that each of the first gas nozzles is angled outwards relative 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank '623 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 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank '002.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Frank '002 teaches the device according to claim 13, but does not explicitly disclose that each of the one or more resilient members is connected to the device body via a removable adapter or 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.
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).
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.
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 or 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.
Conclusion
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