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
Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/15/2026.
Status of Claims
The action is in reply to the Application filed on 05/31/2024. Claims 1-8 are currently pending. Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are withdrawn. Claims 4-5 and 8 are being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/31/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, line 3 “a height detector that detects height of the wafer suction surface” should be “a height detector that detects a height of the wafer suction surface”;
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“an edge trimming mechanism that grinds an outer circumferential part of an upper surface of the wafer” in claim 4, lines 3-4 and corresponding structural element 12 which includes a spindle 121 that is a rotating shaft extending along the Y-axis direction is rotatably supported in a housing 122, the spindle 121 is rotationally driven around an axis line along the Y-axis direction by a spindle motor 123, and an abrasive stone 13 with a circular plate shape is attached to the tip of the spindle as described in paragraph 0023 of the specification. This limitation shall be constructed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
“ a ring table holding mechanism that holds the ring table” in claim 4, lines 14-15 and corresponding structural element 50 which includes table suction holes 39, the table suction paths 40, the suction path open/close valve 42, the suction source 43, and so forth form the ring table holding mechanism as described in paragraph 0039 of the specification. This limitation shall be constructed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
“a height detector that detects height of the wafer suction surface and the support surface” in claim 8, lines 3-4 and corresponding structural element 60 which is a contactless-type position sensor that measures the height from the result of application of light, electromagnetic waves, ultrasonic waves, or the like to a measurement target and reflection thereof, a contact-type height gauge that executes measurement by directly bringing a measurement probe into contact with a measurement target, or the like as described in paragraph 0058 of the specification. This limitation shall be constructed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
“a storage section that stores the height of the support surface measured by the height detector” in claim 8, lines 5-7 and corresponding structural element 61 that is a portion of the controller 14 which stores the height of the support surface as measured by the height detector as described in paragraph 0059 of the specification. This limitation shall be constructed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
“thickness calculation section that calculates difference between the height of the wafer suction surface measured and the height of the support surface stored in the storage section” in claim 8, lines 7-10 and corresponding structural element 62 that is a portion of the controller 14 which calculates the difference between the measured height of the wafer suction surface 45 and the height of the support surface 30 stored in the storage section 61 as the thickness of the ring table as described in paragraph 0060 of the specification. This limitation shall be constructed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
“a determination section that determines a timing” in claim 8, lines 12-13 and corresponding structural element 63 that is a portion of the controller 14 which determines the timing at which the thickness of the ring table 26 calculated by the thickness calculation section 62 has become equal to or smaller than a threshold set in advance as the replacement timing of the ring table 26 as described in paragraph 0061 of the specification. This limitation shall be constructed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation "a suction source" in line 10. It is unclear if the applicant is attempting to claim multiple/different suction sources or if the applicant is referring back to the suction source as introduced in claim 4, line 21, thus rendering the claimed indefinite. For examining purposes, the examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be referring to a single suction source.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chano (JP 2015182166) in view of Yamamoto (US Pub. No. 2018/0065187).
Regarding claim 1, Chano discloses: an edge trimming apparatus (Figures 1-10 element 10 and see also paragraph 0011) comprising:
a chuck table (element 11) that holds a wafer (The examiner indicates that the wafer has not been positively recited as part of the claimed invention (i.e. edge trimming apparatus). Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses in figure 2 the chuck table (element 11) holding a workpiece (element 90), and giving that there is no additional structure provided or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the chuck table hold a wafer, as recited.);
an edge trimming mechanism (elements 13) that grinds an outer circumferential part of an upper surface of the wafer held by the chuck table in a ring manner by an abrasive stone (The examiner indicates that the wafer and any associated structure (i.e. an outer circumferential part of an upper surface) has not been positively recited as part of the claimed invention (i.e. edge trimming apparatus). Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses the edge trimming mechanism (elements 13) which also include a spindle (element 31) having an abrasive stone (element 30 and see also paragraph 0015 where the prior art discloses element 30 as a “grindstone”) attached to and processing an outer circumferential part of an upper surface of the workpiece (see figures 6-7 and see also paragraph 0033) while held by the chuck table (element 11), and giving that there is no additional structure provided or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the edge trimming mechanism grind an outer circumferential part of an upper surface of the wafer held by the chuck table in a ring manner by an abrasive stone, as recited.); and
a controller (element 19 and see also paragraph 0019) that controls the edge trimming mechanism (see paragraph 0019 where the prior art discloses element 19 (controller) is used “for controlling the entire cutting apparatus” (i.e. edge trimming apparatus), and giving that the edge trimming mechanism (element 13) is a component of element 10 (edge trimming apparatus), thus the controller would necessarily control the edge trimming mechanism).
However, Chano appears to be silent wherein the chuck table includes a ring table that sucks and holds a lower surface of the outer circumferential part of the wafer by a wafer suction surface and a base table that holds the ring table in such a manner that the wafer suction surface is exposed, the base table has a ring table holding mechanism that holds the ring table, a support surface that supports a lower surface of the ring table held by the ring table holding mechanism, and a communicating port that is formed in the support surface and causes the wafer suction surface of the ring table to communicate with a suction source, the ring table has a wafer suction hole having an opening in the wafer suction surface in such a manner as to be capable of connecting to the communicating port, and the ring table is mounted on the base table attachably and detachably.
Yamamoto is also concern in providing an apparatus (Figures 1-4A and see also paragraph 0019) comprising a chuck table (element 42). Yamamoto further teaches wherein the chuck table includes a ring table (element 64) that sucks and holds a lower surface of the outer circumferential part of the wafer by a wafer suction surface (The examiner indicates that the wafer and any associated structure (i.e. lower surface of the outer circumferential part) has not been positively recited as the claimed invention. Therefore, given that the prior art discloses the ring table (element 64) that has an attractive suction surface as an upper surface thereof which is provided by element 641 (wafer suction surface and see also paragraph 0020) that supports a workpiece (see figures 4A-4B elements W1/W2) including an outer part of the workpiece, and giving that there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the ring table suck and hold the lower surface of the outer circumferential part of the wafer by the wafer suction surface, as recited.) and a base table (element 67) that holds the ring table in such a manner that the wafer suction surface is exposed (see figure 2C showing the base table (element 67) operably holding the right table (element 64) in a manner that the wafer suction surface (upper surface of element 641) is exposed),
the base table has a ring table holding mechanism (elements 67c) that holds the ring table (see paragraph 0024), a support surface (see figure 3 annotated below Detail A) that supports a lower surface (see figure 3 annotated below Detail B) of the ring table held by the ring table holding mechanism (see paragraph 0024 and see also figures 2C-3), and a communicating port (element 67b) that is formed in the support surface (see figure 3 annotated below) and causes the wafer suction surface of the ring table to communicate with a suction source (element P and see also paragraph 0024),
the ring table has a wafer suction hole having an opening in the wafer suction surface (see paragraph 0023 where the prior art discloses element 641 (wafer suction surface) being made of “air-permeable porous” material which is well known in the art to have interconnected tiny holes (wafer suction hole having an opening) that let air and gases flow easily through them) in such a manner as to be capable of connecting to the communicating port (see paragraph 0024), and the ring table is mounted on the base table attachably and detachably (see figures 2B-4B).
PNG
media_image1.png
714
847
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chano to incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto to provide wherein the chuck table includes a ring table that sucks and holds a lower surface of the outer circumferential part of the wafer by a wafer suction surface and a base table that holds the ring table in such a manner that the wafer suction surface is exposed, the base table has a ring table holding mechanism that holds the ring table, a support surface that supports a lower surface of the ring table held by the ring table holding mechanism, and a communicating port that is formed in the support surface and causes the wafer suction surface of the ring table to communicate with a suction source, the ring table has a wafer suction hole having an opening in the wafer suction surface in such a manner as to be capable of connecting to the communicating port, and the ring table is mounted on the base table attachably and detachably. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the chuck table with the claimed features would necessarily allow the edge trimming apparatus to continue to function as intended in order to properly secure the workpiece under suction while also providing the added feature of now having a modular chuck table, thus allowing the user to replace a damaged component (i.e. base or ring table) of the chuck table instead of replacing the entire chuck table.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chano (JP 2015182166) in view of Yamamoto (US Pub. No. 2018/0065187) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Takisawa (US Patent No. 6,383,890).
Regarding claim 5, Chano modified discloses: wherein the base table has a table suction hole (see figure 3 annotated below of prior art Yamamoto showing a selected top portion (box of Detail A) of element 67C forming a table suction hole) that is formed in the support surface and sucks the ring table (see figure 3 annotated below of prior art Yamamoto and see also paragraph 0024), and the ring table holding mechanism includes the table suction hole that is formed in the support surface of the base table and sucks the lower surface of the ring table (see figure 3 annotated below Detail A) of prior art Yamamoto), a table suction path (element Lb) that causes the table suction hole to communicate with a suction source (see paragraph 0024 of prior art Yamamoto).
However, Chano modified appears to be silent comprising a table suction path open/close valve disposed on the table suction path.
Takisawa is also concern in providing an apparatus (Figures 1-29 and see also col. 8, ll. 1-10) comprising a chuck table (element 3) that holds a wafer (element 1), a table suction path (element 18) that communicates with a suction source (element 20 and see also col. 10, ll. 51-52). Komatsu further teaches wherein the apparatus comprises a table suction path open/close valve (element 19 and see also col. 10, ll. 49-53) disposed on the table suction path (see figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Chano to incorporate the teachings of Takisawa to provide a table suction path open/close valve disposed on the table suction path. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a known open/close valve would necessarily provide a controlled valve in order to prevent leakage in a closed position and provide sufficient vacuum pressure to secure a workpiece during an open position, thus enhancing the capabilities of the apparatus of securement of the workpiece with the apparatus and preventing the tool or workpiece from being damaged during operations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 8 recites limitations related to the edge trimming apparatus, specifically “a height detector that detects height of the wafer suction surface and the support surface, wherein the controller has a storage section that stores the height of the support surface measured by the height detector, a thickness calculation section that calculates difference between the height of the wafer suction surface measured and the height of the support surface stored in the storage section as thickness of the ring table when the height of the wafer suction surface is measured, and a determination section that determines a timing at which the thickness calculated by the thickness calculation section has become equal to or smaller than a threshold set in advance as a replacement timing of the ring table”.
The prior art of Chano discloses the edge trimming apparatus (Figures 1-10 element 10 and see also paragraph 0011) comprising a chuck table (element 11) and an edge trimming mechanism (elements 13). Chano further teaches a measuring device (element 16 and see also paragraph 0011) for measuring the position of the outer edge of the workpiece, a storage unit (element 18) for storing the correspondence between the position of the outer peripheral edge of the workpiece and the position of the cutting means in the ± Y direction, and a control unit (element 19) for controlling the entire cutting apparatus (see paragraph 0011). However, Chano measuring device (i.e. height detector) detects the position of an edge of the workpiece and stores the position and compares the position to the position of the edge trimming mechanism in order to adjust the position. Thus, the prior art does not disclose a height detector that detects height of the wafer suction surface and the support surface, wherein the controller has a storage section that stores the height of the support surface measured by the height detector, a thickness calculation section that calculates difference between the height of the wafer suction surface measured and the height of the support surface stored in the storage section as thickness of the ring table when the height of the wafer suction surface is measured, and a determination section that determines a timing at which the thickness calculated by the thickness calculation section has become equal to or smaller than a threshold set in advance as a replacement timing of the ring table.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM EST.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights