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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7 and 14-20 in the reply filed on 10-30-25 is acknowledged.
Withdrawn claims 8-13 have been canceled.
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 4 and 5 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.
Claims 4 refers to an inner height, however it is unclear what particular features is being described as having an inner height. Claim 1 includes a plurality of end chucks, however none of the end chucks are describes as having inner sections or inner height. Therefore, it is unclear what particular feature is being referred to as having an inner height.
Claim 5 refers to a thickness, however it is unclear what particular feature of the chucking apparatus has the recited thickness. Claim 1 refers to a plurality of end chuck, which may each have several features that can have a thickness. Therefore, it is unclear which feature is required to have the recited thickness.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano et al. US 2014/0331927 (US’927) in view Takahara et al. US 2022/0157641 (US’641).
Regarding claim 1, US’927 teaches a chucking apparatus, comprising: a plurality of end chuck sections that are moveable to position the chucking apparatus between an open state and a closed state around a substrate (chuck pins 13 pivot about axis A2 between the closed position where the chuck pins 13 are pressed into the peripheral end surface of the substrate W and the open position where the chick pins 13 are separated from the peripheral end surface of the substrate W, para. 57 fig. 2 and 4); wherein in the open state, the plurality of end chuck sections are separated from each other (the pins 13 are shown to be spread around the periphery of the substrate, see fig. 2); and wherein in the closed state, the plurality of end chuck sections cooperate around the substrate (the pins cooperate to hold the substrate, para. 57, see fig. 2) and are configured to cover end regions near a periphery of the substrate (pin covering portion 51 is shown to extend over the edge of the substrate when the substrate is being held, para. 77, see fig. 3-5) and is configured to block a wafer cleaning tool from contact with the end regions near the periphery of the substrate (since the pin cover extends over the edge of the substrate, any cleaning tool would necessarily be blocked at least to some extent, see fig. 3-5).
US’927 does not teach the plurality of end chuck sections cooperate to form a substantially contiguous shape around the substrate.
US’641 teaches structural holding mechanism for holding a substrate using holding sections (para. 53-81, see fig. 15b). US’641 describes holding sections 120a-e disposed around the mounting stage that cooperate to form a substantially contiguous shape around the substrate as shown in fig. 8-15, “substantially” includes embodiments that have some discontinuous sections. The holding sections can restrict movement of the substrate by hold the edge of the substrate and correct any offset positioning of the substrate on the mounting surface (para. 72). Even when the substrate W has warpage it is possible to prevent the substrate W from bouncing or slipping due to the restoring force of the substrate warpage (para. 31-38 and 100). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognizes from the teachings of US’641 that arranging the holding pins of US’927 as taught by US’641 can improve holding of the peripheral regions of the substrate to prevent offset of the substrate when mounted in a holding structure and prevent bouncing of slipping of the wafer due to inherent warpage of the substrate. The combination of the holding structures of US’641 with the substrate holder of US’927 the holding structures would substantially surround the substrate. These structures inherently block any external tools from contacting the edge of the substrate because they overlaps the substrate edge to hold the substrate (see fig. 9-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chucking apparatus of US’927 to include the plurality of end chuck sections cooperate to form a substantially contiguous shape around the substrate because US’641 teaches it prevents offset of the substrate when mounted in a holding structure and prevents bouncing of slipping of the wafer due to inherent warpage of the substrate and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
Regarding claim 2, the modified apparatus of US’927 teaches the chucking apparatus of claim 1. US’927 further teaches wherein the plurality of end chuck sections comprise a top piece and a bottom piece and wherein a top surface of the top piece is substantially parallel to a top surface of the bottom piece (the pin covering portion 51 includes an upper wall 52 disposed above the gripping portion 41, two side walls 53 disposed on both sides of the gripping portion 41 in the circumferential direction C1 including lower side portions 53b, para.90-93, see fig. 4-5).
Regarding claims 4-7, the modified apparatus of US’927 teaches the chucking apparatus of claim 1.
US’927 is silent with regard to the dimensions of the pin and specifically that an inner height of between 0.5 mm to approximately 2 mm, with regard to claim 4, a thickness of between 1 mm to approximately 30 mm, with regard to claim 5, wherein the plurality of end chuck sections comprise a top piece and the top piece has an inner diameter of between 200 mm to approximately 450 mm, with regard to claim 6 and wherein the plurality of end chuck sections comprise a top piece and the top piece has an outer diameter of between 201 mm to approximately 480 mm, with regard to claim 7.
However, US’927 teaches that the chucking pins are designed to engage the substrate and therefore are dimensioned relative to the substrate it is designed to hold, as discussed above. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if the substrate diameter were to be larger or smaller the dimensions of the chuck pin would have to be adjusted as well. Modifying a known structure by scaling or adjusting its dimensions does not make a patentable distinction over the prior art. When the underlying function is unchanged, adapting the chuck pins of US’927 to accommodate any particular sized substrate would be an obvious modification.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to modify the modified apparatus of US’927 to include an inner height of between 0.5 mm to approximately 2 mm, with regard to claim 4, a thickness of between 1 mm to approximately 30 mm, with regard to claim 5, wherein the plurality of end chuck sections comprise a top piece and the top piece has an inner diameter of between 200 mm to approximately 450 mm, with regard to claim 6 and wherein the plurality of end chuck sections comprise a top piece and the top piece has an outer diameter of between 201 mm to approximately 480 mm, with regard to claim 7 because US’927 teaches the chucking pins are designed to accommodate a substrate and where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is 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 is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, see MPEP 2144.04 .IV. (A).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’927 in view of US’641 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakahara et al. US 6,863,735 (US’’735).
Regarding claim 3, the modified apparatus of US’927 teaches the chucking apparatus of claim 1.
The modified apparatus of US’927 does not teach wherein the plurality of end chuck sections comprise a top piece and a bottom piece and wherein a top surface of the top piece is in a first plane, a top surface of the bottom piece is in a second plane, and the first plane and the second plane have an angular difference of between 1 to 45 degrees.
US’735 teaches wafer holding clamps including surfaces arranged at different angles as shown in fig. 4a-c. The angular positioning of these surfaces along with the configuration of the jaws reduce mechanical stress on the wafer and is important for large diameter substrates that are susceptible to bending. nonuniform pressing by the plurality of jaws results in the application of localized weights on the semiconductor wafer so that if the direction of pressing just coincides with any physically weak portion of the wafer. As many of five or more jaws can be arranged at equal angular intervals along the holder periphery to fully support the substrate (col. 3-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified apparatus of US’927 to include wherein the plurality of end chuck sections comprise a top piece and a bottom piece and wherein a top surface of the top piece is in a first plane, a top surface of the bottom piece is in a second plane, and the first plane and the second plane have an angular difference of between 1 to 45 degrees because US’735 teaches angling the upper surface of a wafer holding structure to configure the holder to reduce mechanical stress of the wafer structure and the configuration of the claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed product is significant, see MPEP 2144.04 .IV. (B).
Claim(s) 14-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano et al. US 2014/0331927 (US’927) in view Takahara et al. US 2022/0157641 (US’641).
Regarding claim 14, US’927 teaches a substrate cleaning system (the apparatus dispenses cleaning liquid onto a substrate, para. 56-67), comprising: a substrate chuck configured to hold a substrate during substrate cleaning operations (spin base 12, see fig. 1, para. 58); a substrate cleaning tool (liquid dispensing nozzles 17, 28 and 22, para. 62-68); and an end chuck comprising: a cover section (pin covering portion 51 is shown to extend over the edge of the substrate when the substrate is being held, para. 77, see fig. 3-5); an open state wherein the cover section is separated into a plurality of non- contiguous sections; and a closed state wherein the cover section form above the substrate while the substrate is held by the substrate chuck (chuck pins 13 pivot about axis A2 between the closed position where the chuck pins 13 are pressed into the peripheral end surface of the substrate W and the open position where the chick pins 13 are separated from the peripheral end surface of the substrate W, para. 57 fig. 2 and 4); wherein in the closed state, the cover section covers end regions near a periphery of the substrate (pin covering portion 51 is shown to extend over the edge of the substrate when the substrate is being held, para. 77, see fig. 3-5).
US’927 does not teach the cover section forms a substantially contiguous shape above the substrate.
US’641 teaches structural holding mechanism for holding a substrate using holding sections (para. 53-81, see fig. 15b). US’641 describes holding sections 120a-e disposed around the mounting stage that cooperate to form a substantially contiguous shape around the substrate as shown in fig. 8-15, “substantially” includes embodiments that have some discontinuous sections. The holding sections can restrict movement of the substrate by hold the edge of the substrate and correct any offset positioning of the substrate on the mounting surface (para. 72). Even when the substrate W has warpage it is possible to prevent the substrate W from bouncing or slipping due to the restoring force of the substrate warpage (para. 31-38 and 100). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognizes from the teachings of US’641 that arranging the holding pins of US’927 as taught by US’641 can improve holding of the peripheral regions of the substrate to prevent offset of the substrate when mounted in a holding structure and prevent bouncing of slipping of the wafer due to inherent warpage of the substrate. The combination of the holding structures of US’641 with the substrate holder of US’927 the holding structures would substantially surround the substrate. These structures inherently block any external tools from contacting the edge of the substrate because they overlaps the substrate edge to hold the substrate (see fig. 9-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chucking apparatus of US’927 to include the cover section forms a substantially contiguous shape above the substrate because US’641 teaches it prevents offset of the substrate when mounted in a holding structure and prevents bouncing of slipping of the wafer due to inherent warpage of the substrate and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
Regarding claim 15, the modified apparatus of US’927 teaches the chucking apparatus of claim 14. US’927 further teaches wherein a top surface of the cover section is substantially parallel to a top surface of the substrate (see fig. 4-5 and 11).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, the modified apparatus of US’927 teaches the chucking apparatus of claim 14. US’927 further teaches wherein the end chuck comprises hydrophobic material, with regard to claim 17 and wherein the hydrophobic material comprises one or more of polytetrafluoroethylene with regard to claim 18 (The pin cover 38 is made of a resin material softer than the substrate W, the resin material having chemical resistance, specific examples of resin to be contained in the pin cover 38 are PTFE/ polytetrafluoroethylene, para. 81).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the modified apparatus of US’927 teaches the chucking apparatus of claim 14. US’927 further teaches wherein the end chuck comprises hydrophilic material, with regard to claim 19 and wherein the hydrophilic material comprises a photocatalyst, with regard to claim 20 (the gripping portion 41 is made of a composite material containing carbon and PFA, the holding portion 59 is made of conductive ceramics such as SiC (silicon carbide). The holding portion 59 may be a carbon sintered body or may be made of conductive ceramics other than SiC of zirconia (ZrO2) or the like, para. 130, see fig. 10, zirconia is a hydrophilic photocatalyst material)
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’927 in view of US’641 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Nakahara et al. US 6,863,735 (US’’735).
Regarding claim 16, the modified apparatus of US’927 teaches the chucking apparatus of claim 14.
The modified apparatus of US’927 does not teach wherein a top surface of the cover section is in a first plane and a top surface of the substrate is in a second plane, and the first plane and the second plane have an angular difference of between 1 to 45 degrees.
US’735 teaches wafer holding clamps including surfaces arranged at different angles as shown in fig. 4a-c. The angular positioning of these surfaces along with the configuration of the jaws reduce mechanical stress on the wafer and is important for large diameter substrates that are susceptible to bending. nonuniform pressing by the plurality of jaws results in the application of localized weights on the semiconductor wafer so that if the direction of pressing just coincides with any physically weak portion of the wafer. As many of five or more jaws can be arranged at equal angular intervals along the holder periphery to fully support the substrate (col. 3-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified apparatus of US’927 to include wherein a top surface of the cover section is in a first plane and a top surface of the substrate is in a second plane, and the first plane and the second plane have an angular difference of between 1 to 45 degrees because US’735 teaches angling the upper surface of a wafer holding structure to configure the holder to reduce mechanical stress of the wafer structure and the configuration of the claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed product is significant, see MPEP 2144.04 .IV. (B).
Claim(s) 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano et al. US 2014/0331927 (US’927) in view Takahara et al. US 2022/0157641 (US’641).
Regarding claim 21, US’927 teaches a chucking apparatus, comprising: a plurality of end chuck sections each comprising a top piece, a bottom piece, and a middle piece, wherein the top piece connects at an end surface to a first end surface of the middle piece and the middle piece connects at a second end surface to an end surface of the bottom piece (as shown in fig. 5-4, the pin covering portion 51 includes an upper side upper wall 52 disposed above the gripping portion 41, two side walls 53 disposed on both sides of the gripping portion 41 in the circumferential direction C1 including lower side portions 53b, para.90-93, see fig. 4-5) wherein the plurality of end chuck sections are moveable to position the chucking apparatus between an open state and a closed state around a substrate; (chuck pins 13 pivot about axis A2 between the closed position where the chuck pins 13 are pressed into the peripheral end surface of the substrate W and the open position where the chick pins 13 are separated from the peripheral end surface of the substrate W, para. 57 fig. 2 and 4); wherein in the closed state, the plurality of end chuck sections cooperate around the substrate (the pins cooperate to hold the substrate, para. 57, see fig. 2) that is configured to cover end regions near a periphery of the substrate (pin covering portion 51 is shown to extend over the edge of the substrate when the substrate is being held, para. 77, see fig. 3-5).
US’927 does not teach the plurality of end chuck sections cooperate to form a substantially contiguous shape around the substrate.
US’641 teaches structural holding mechanism for holding a substrate using holding sections (para. 53-81, see fig. 15b). US’641 describes holding sections 120a-e disposed around the mounting stage that cooperate to form a substantially contiguous shape around the substrate as shown in fig. 8-15, “substantially” includes embodiments that have some discontinuous sections. The holding sections can restrict movement of the substrate by hold the edge of the substrate and correct any offset positioning of the substrate on the mounting surface (para. 72). Even when the substrate W has warpage it is possible to prevent the substrate W from bouncing or slipping due to the restoring force of the substrate warpage (para. 31-38 and 100). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognizes from the teachings of US’641 that arranging the holding pins of US’927 as taught by US’641 can improve holding of the peripheral regions of the substrate to prevent offset of the substrate when mounted in a holding structure and prevent bouncing of slipping of the wafer due to inherent warpage of the substrate. The combination of the holding structures of US’641 with the substrate holder of US’927 the holding structures would substantially surround the substrate. These structures inherently block any external tools from contacting the edge of the substrate because they overlaps the substrate edge to hold the substrate (see fig. 9-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chucking apparatus of US’927 to include the plurality of end chuck sections cooperate to form a substantially contiguous shape around the substrate because US’641 teaches it prevents offset of the substrate when mounted in a holding structure and prevents bouncing of slipping of the wafer due to inherent warpage of the substrate and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
Regarding claim 22, the modified apparatus of US’927 teaches the chucking apparatus of claim 21. The modified apparatus of US’927 further teaches wherein: in the closed state, the top piece in a top view has an annular shape with an inner diameter and an outer diameter; the inner diameter is shorter than a length across the substrate; and the outer diameter is longer than the length across the substrate (see fig. 4, the top surface extend over the wafer periphery).
Regarding claim 23, the modified apparatus of US’927 teaches the chucking apparatus of claim 21. The modified apparatus of US’927 further teaches wherein the middle piece in a cross-sectional view along a plane that is perpendicular to a plane encompassing a top surface of the substrate has a linear shape (see fig. 4-5 and 8, part 53a is linear).
Regarding claims 24-25, the modified apparatus of US’927 teaches the chucking apparatus of claim 21.
The modified apparatus of US’927 does not teaches wherein the middle piece in a cross-sectional view along a plane that is perpendicular to a plane encompassing a top surface of the substrate has a curved shape, with regard to claim 24 and wherein in a cross-sectional view along a plane that is perpendicular to a plane encompassing a top surface of the substrate, the middle piece comprises a plurality of linear segments that meet at an angle of less than 180 degrees, with regard to claim 25.
However, US’927 teaches the shape of the pins can include linear segments and accommodation grooves 42 (para. 82-86, see fig. 4-5, 8 and 11). Modifying a known structure by scaling or adjusting its dimensions does not make a patentable distinction over the prior art. When the underlying function is unchanged, adapting the chuck pins of US’927 to accommodate a groove with a curve or have linear segments would be an obvious modification in light of the substrate also having a curved edge and known structures for holding the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to modify the modified apparatus of US’927 to include wherein the middle piece in a cross-sectional view along a plane that is perpendicular to a plane encompassing a top surface of the substrate has a curved shape, with regard to claim 24 and wherein in a cross-sectional view along a plane that is perpendicular to a plane encompassing a top surface of the substrate, the middle piece comprises a plurality of linear segments that meet at an angle of less than 180 degrees, with regard to claim 25 because US’927 teaches the chucking pins are designed to accommodate a substrate which has a curved shaped edge and include linear segments and the configuration of the claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed product is significant, see MPEP 2144.04 .IV. (B).
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’927 in view of US’641 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Nakahara et al. US 6,863,735 (US’’735).
Regarding claim 26, the modified apparatus of US’927 teaches the chucking apparatus of claim 21.
The modified apparatus of US’927 does not teach wherein in the closed state around the substrate, a top surface of the top piece is in a first plane, a top surface of the substrate is in a second plane, and the first plane and the second plane have an angular difference between about 1 degree to about 45 degrees.
US’735 teaches wafer holding clamps including surfaces arranged at different angles as shown in fig. 4a-c. The angular positioning of these surfaces along with the configuration of the jaws reduce mechanical stress on the wafer and is important for large diameter substrates that are susceptible to bending. nonuniform pressing by the plurality of jaws results in the application of localized weights on the semiconductor wafer so that if the direction of pressing just coincides with any physically weak portion of the wafer. As many of five or more jaws can be arranged at equal angular intervals along the holder periphery to fully support the substrate (col. 3-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified apparatus of US’927 to include wherein a top surface of the cover section is in a first plane and a top surface of the substrate is in a second plane, and the first plane and the second plane have an angular difference of between 1 to 45 degrees because US’735 teaches angling the upper surface of a wafer holding structure to configure the holder to reduce mechanical stress of the wafer structure and the configuration of the claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed product is significant, see MPEP 2144.04 .IV. (B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN FLANAGAN BERGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-1133. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713