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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-7, filed June 5, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 3-6 under U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. A new ground(s) of rejection is necessitated by the amendment. The deficiencies of Miyazaki are now met by Mertens in. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1and 3-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1 and 3-6 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 1 recites the limitation “gap between the wafer and the annular wafer support unit in the non-contact portion is greater than 0 mm and 0.4 mm or less”, it is unclear what is range of the annular wafer support unit in the non-contact portion. The language of claim 1 does not set forth well-defined gap between the wafer and the annular wafer support unit in the non-contact portion and one of ordinary skill in the art would not know from the proposed values or range of values the gap between the wafer and the annular wafer support unit in the non-contact portion encompasses. Claim 1 therefore does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventors regard as the invention. The claim scope is unclear, for the purpose of examination the examiner uses a range 0mm- 4mm for the gap between the wafer and the annular wafer support unit in the non-contact portion. Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki US 2013/0154675 A1(hereinafter referred to as Miyazaki) in view of Mertens et al. US 20060102849 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Mertens).
Regarding claim 1, Miyazaki discloses a wafer inspection apparatus (fig. 1, elm. 2, par. [0048]) comprising a turntable (fig. 1, elm. 4, par. [0049]), the turntable comprising; an annular wafer support unit (fig. 1, elm. 3, par. [0049]), the annular wafer support unit comprising: a contact portion (fig. 2-3 and 6, elm. 12, par. [0062]) configured to contact a lower surface of a wafer (fig. 2, elm. 5, par. [0049]), the contact portion (fig. 2-3 and 6, elm. 12, par. [0062]) having a convex shape extending towards the lower surface of the wafer (see fig. 2-3), a non-contact portion (fig. 2-3 and 5, groove, par. [0055]) configured to be out of contact with the lower surface of the wafer, the non-contact portion having a concave shape recessed relative to an upper surface of the contact portion (see fig. 2-3), and a stepped portion between the contact portion and the non-contact portion defining a height difference (fig. 5, distance t2, par. [0062]) such that a gap is formed between the wafer and the non-contact portion (see fig. 2); and a clamping system (fig. 2, wafer holding means 9, par. [0082]) comprising a holding claw (fig. 6-7,wafer holder 13, par. [0062]) for clamping the wafer, wherein the contact portion and the non-contact portion are alternately arranged in a circumferential direction of the turntable so as to face an outer peripheral portion of the lower surface of the wafer (see fig. 2-5), and are provided such that the length in the circumferential direction of the contact portion is shorter than the length in the circumferential direction of the non-contact portion (see fig. 2).
Miyazaki does not disclose wherein the gap between the wafer and the annular wafer support unit in the non-contact portion is greater than 0 mm and 0.4 mm or less.
Mertens discloses wherein the gap (fig. 4, H1, par. [0064]) between the wafer (fig. 2-7, wafer W, par. [0060]) and the annular wafer support unit (fig. 2-7, support table WT, par. [0060]) in the non-contact portion (fig. 2, first space 5, par. [0061]) is greater than 0 mm and 0.4 mm or less (fig. 4, height H1, par. [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a support table for supporting a substrate. The support table includes a plurality of support protrusions that contact the substrate during use for supporting the substrate, as taught in Mertens in modifying the apparatus of Miyazaki. The motivation would be to provide heat transfer protrusions are used for heat transfer to and/or from the wafer support, utilizing heat transfer by gas conduction, without the heat transfer protrusions contacting the wafer support. (see Mertens: par. [0027]).
Regarding claim 3, , Miyazaki and Mertens discloses wafer inspection apparatus of claim 1, Mertens discloses wherein a direction of a normal line of a stepped surface (see fig. 2-5)) between the contact portion (fig. 2-3 and 6, elm. 12, par. [0062]) and the non-contact portion (fig. 2-3 and 5, groove, par. [0055]) of the annular wafer support unit (fig. 1, elm. 3, par. [0049]) is a direction to face outward with respect to a tangential direction of an outer periphery of the turntable (fig. 1, elm. 4, par. [0049]).
Regarding claim 4, Miyazaki and Mertens discloses wafer inspection apparatus of claim 1, Mertens discloses wherein a same number of clamping systems (fig. 2, wafer holding means 9, par. [0082]) and contact portions (fig. 2-3 and 6, elm. 12, par. [0062]) are disposed in the circumferential direction of the turntable (fig. 1, elm. 4, par. [0049]).
Regarding claim 5, Miyazaki and Mertens discloses wafer inspection apparatus of claim 4, Mertens discloses wherein the holding claw (fig. 6-7,wafer holder 13, par. [0062]) of the clamping system is (fig. 2, wafer holding means 9, par. [0082]) provided within a range that overlaps a region where the contact portion (fig. 2-3 and 6, elm. 12, par. [0062]) is provided in the circumferential direction of the turntable (see fig. 3 and 6-8).
Regarding claim 6, Miyazaki and Mertens discloses wafer inspection apparatus of claim 5, Mertens discloses wherein the holding claw (fig. 6-7, wafer holder 13, par. [0062]) is disposed radially outward with respect to the annular wafer support unit (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Miyazaki and Mertens discloses wafer inspection apparatus of claim 1, Mertens discloses wherein the gap (fig. 4, H1, par. [0064]) between the wafer (fig. 2-7, wafer W, par. [0060]) and the annular wafer support unit (fig. 2-7, support table WT, par. [0060]) in the non-contact portion (fig. 2, first space 5, par. [0061]) is greater than 0 mm and 0.3 mm or less( fig. 4, height H1, par. [0071]).
The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 1..
Regarding Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsumoto JP 2006324692 A.
Regarding claim 8, Miyazaki and Mertens discloses wafer inspection apparatus of claim 1, Miyazaki and Mertens do not disclose wherein the holding claw is configured to horizontally rotate in an in-plane direction with respect to a surface of the wafer to abut an outer peripheral end of the wafer.
Matsumoto discloses wherein the holding claw (fig. 3a, 3b, elm. 55, par. [0015]) is configured to horizontally rotate in an in-plane direction (see fig. 3a, 3b, par. [0015]) with respect to a surface of the wafer (fig. 3a, 3b, elm. 50, par. [0015]) to abut an outer peripheral end of the wafer (see fig. 2b, par. [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rotatably provide a substrate support member on an upper surface of the rim, having a contact portion that contacts a side surface portion of the substrate, as taught in Matsumoto in modifying the apparatus of Miyazaki. The motivation would be to press the wafer substrate toward the rim side. (see Matsumoto: par. [0015]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY G MCDONNOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm.
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, EMAN ALKAFAWI can be reached at (571) 272-4448. 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.
/COURTNEY G MCDONNOUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
7/10/2026
Prosecution Insights