DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-19 in the reply filed on January 23, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is supposed to provide a reader the nature and gist of the technical disclosure and that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains, regardless to the readers' her degree of familiarity with patent documents. Repeating claim 1 requires the reader to understand how claims are to be presented and does not provide a reader what is new or beneficial. It is suggested to amend the abstract to provide any reader an understanding of what is new or beneficial and what the application is directed towards. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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:
plate holding member in claims 1 and 19;
rigid member in claims 1 and 19.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-7, 9-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bamesberger (US 2022/0115259).
In regards to claim 1, Bamesberger teaches a superstrate chuck assembly (118) for holding a superstrate/plate (108) (para. 34-35), comprising:
a plate holding member (130) holds the superstrate/plate, the plate holding member including a central opening (fig. 3A-3E, 4; para. 46-47);
a support ring (188, rigid member) holds the plate holding member (fig. 3A-3E, 4; para. 54-55);
a first channel/cavity (148) formed by the plate holding member (fig. 3D, 3E, 3H, 3I; para. 50)
a second channel/passage (174) is in the rigid member (fig. 3G-3I; para. 50, 56);
a first passage (172, first fluid conduit) in communication with the second channel (fig. 3G-3I; para. 50, 56); and
a second passage (174, second fluid conduit) at least partially disposed within the second channel and in communication with the first channel/cavity (148) via a through hole (186) (fig. 3G-3I; para. 50, 56).
In regards to claim 2, Bamesberger teaches the superstrate/plate is held using vacuum suction applied to the first channel/cavity (148) and the second passage (para. 50-51).
In regards to claim 3, Bamesberger teaches the plate holding member comprises a flexible portion (134) made of a flexible material (para. 46).
In regards to claim 4, Bamesberger teaches the plate holding member is moved using changes is pressure (para. 46, 50, 64-65).
In regards to claim 5, Bamesberger teaches the second channel/passage (174) overlaps a portion of the plate holding member (130) (fig. 3G, 3I).
In regards to claim 6, Bamesberger teaches a first port-156 (third fluid conduit), the support ring (188, rigid member) comprises a first passage-158 which connects to a second passage (160) (third channel) where the first passage-15 faces the plate holding member (fig. 3D, 3E) and the first port-156 is in communication with the second passage (fig. 3D, 3E; para 49).
In regards to claims 7 and 9, Bamesberger teaches the first passage (172, first fluid conduit) connects to a vacuum source and the second channel/passage (174) (para. 50)
In regards to claim 10, Bamesberger teaches the second passage (174, second fluid conduit) connects to a fixture at a second end (178) and a tube (170), and where a vacuum source connects to second passage (fig. 3G-3I; para. 50, 56).
In regards to claim 19, Bamesberger teaches a planarization system (100) comprising:
a superstrate chuck assembly (118) for holding a superstrate/plate (108) (para. 34-35), comprising:
a plate holding member (130) holds the superstrate/plate, the plate holding member including a central opening (fig. 3A-3E, 4; para. 46-47);
a support ring (188, rigid member) holds the plate holding member (fig. 3A-3E, 4; para. 54-55);
a first channel/cavity (148) formed by the plate holding member (fig. 3D, 3E, 3H, 3I; para. 50)
a second channel/passage (174) is in the rigid member (fig. 3G-3I; para. 50, 56);
a first passage (172, first fluid conduit) in communication with the second channel (fig. 3G-3I; para. 50, 56); and
a second passage (174, second fluid conduit) at least partially disposed within the second channel and in communication with the first channel/cavity (148) via a through hole (186) (fig. 3G-3I; para. 50, 56);
a substrate chuck (104) which holds a substrate (102) (fig. 1; para. 32-33);
a fluid dispenser (122) that dispenses a formable material (124) onto the substrate (fig. 1; para. 36).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 11-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717