DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/06/2024,04/25/2024, 07/29/2024, 01/14/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 03/06/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: how can the spatial regions act as a fixing element ? The examiner needs further clarification on how regions can act as elements. Is the applicant trying to say the fixing elements are inside the special region ? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagenleithner et al. (US 20150210057 A1) in view of Umetsu et al. (JP 2014116433 A).
Regrading claim 1, Wagenleithner discloses a substrate holder (1), comprising
- a holding surface (3k); ([0093], Fig. 1) and
- a plurality of fixing elements (6) formed on the holding surface (3k) for fixing substrates; ([0093], Fig. 1)
Wagenleithner does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the substrate holder is made of silicon carbide or silicon nitride.
However, Umetsu discloses:
the substrate holder (11) is made of silicon carbide (“the substrate holding member of the example is made of SiC”) or silicon nitride. (Fig. 1B)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Wagenleithner and Umetsu for the substrate holder is made of silicon carbide or silicon nitride in order to “provide a substrate holding member capable of suppressing generation of particles.” (Umetsu, page 1)
Regarding claim 2, Wagenleithner discloses the substrate holder according to claim 1, wherein the fixing elements (6) comprise electrostatic fixing elements (per [0095]). (Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 3, Wagenleithner discloses the substrate holder according to claim 1, wherein the fixing elements (6) comprise vacuum holes (per [0094]) configured to be evacuated via lines connected to the vacuum holes. ([0043], Fig. 6)
Regarding claim 4, Umetsu discloses the substrate holder according to claim 1, further comprising
- multiple studs (13a/13b) elevated from the holding surface (Fig. 1B); and
- spatial regions (17a/17b) located between studs (13a/13b) and acting as the fixing elements (14) during an evacuation. (Fig. 1A-1B)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Umetsu for similar reasons mentioned beforehand.
Regarding claim 5, Umetsu discloses the substrate holder according to claim 4, wherein each stud (13a/13b) has a diameter of less than 5 mm or a height of less than 2 mm. (“The annular protrusions 12, 13a, 13b are formed to have a predetermined width (for example, 0.1 to 0.3 mm)”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Umetsu for similar reasons mentioned beforehand.
Regarding claim 6, Umetsu discloses the substrate holder according to claim 4, wherein each stud (13a/13b) has a shape comprising at least one of a pyramid, cylinder, cuboid, cone or spherical shell, or has a hemispherical base body. (Fig. 1A/1B)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Umetsu for the studs to have a shape comprising at least one of a pyramid, cylinder, cuboid, cone or spherical shell, or has a hemispherical base body, since it has been held that adjusting the shape of an article involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 7, Umetsu discloses the substrate holder according to claim 4, further comprising lines (18a/18b) configured to evacuate the spatial regions. (Fig. 1A/1B)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Umetsu for similar reasons mentioned beforehand.
Regarding claim 10, Umetsu discloses the substrate holder according to claim 1, further comprising an edge element (12) surrounding the fixing elements (14). (Fig. 1A/1B)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Umetsu for similar reasons mentioned beforehand.
Regarding claim 11, Wagenleithner discloses the substrate holder according to claim 1, further comprising a curvature element (10) operative to curve the substrate (3) fixed to the substrate holder (1). ([0101], Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 12, Wagenleithner discloses the substrate holder according to claim 11, wherein the curvature element (10) is located in the center of the substrate holder (1). ([0101], Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 13, Wagenleithner discloses the substrate holder according to claim 11, wherein the curvature element (10) comprises a pin (10). ([0057], Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 14, Umetsu discloses the substrate holder according to claim 1, wherein the fixing elements (14) are arranged in at least one concentric zone (from 12 to 13a). (Fig. 1A)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Umetsu for similar reasons mentioned beforehand.
Regarding claim 15, Umetsu discloses the substrate holder according to claim 14, wherein the fixing elements are arranged in four concentric zones. (“In the present embodiment, the two annular convex portions 13a and 13b are provided inside the outermost annular convex portion 12, but it is also possible to provide one or three or more annular convex portions.” Meaning the examiner believes the disclosure to provide other embodiments where there could be four concentric zones)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Umetsu for similar reasons mentioned beforehand.
Regarding claim 16, Umetsu discloses the substrate holder according to claim 1. Umetsu does not disclose wherein the fixing elements are arranged along a spiral.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Umetsu for the fixing elements are arranged along a spiral since it has been held that adjusting the shape of an article involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 17, Umetsu discloses the substrate holder according to claim 1, wherein the fixing elements (14) are divided into a plurality of zones constituted as hexagons.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Umetsu for similar reasons mentioned beforehand.
PNG
media_image1.png
589
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagenleithner et al. (US 20150210057 A1) in view of Umetsu et al. (JP 2014116433 A) as applied to claim 8, 9 above, and further in view of Izumi (US 20090317960 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Wagenleithner in view of Umetsu disclose the substrate holder according to claim 1. Wagenleithner in view of Umetsu do not disclose further comprising at least one sensor located in the holding surface.
However, Izumi discloses:
at least one sensor (121) located in the holding surface. ([0052], Fig. 2A)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Wagenleithner, Umetsu and Izumi to have at least one sensor located in the holding surface in order to “improve the flatness of the wafer bonding interface” (Izumi, [0006])
Regarding claim 9, Izumi discloses the substrate holder according to claim 8, wherein the at least one sensor (121) comprises at least one of a temperature sensor (per [0052]), a pressure sensor, or a distance sensor. (Fig. 2A)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings Izumi for similar reasons mentioned beforehand.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY BLACKWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-1600.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at 469-295-9060. 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.
/ASHLEY NICOLE BLACKWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights