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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 02/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-21are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/23/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “at least one through-hole” of claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “composed of at least one selected from” should read –composed of at least one material selected from–.
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.
“suction means” in claim 1 has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f), finding support as a “suction pump” in paragraph 0080 of Applicant’s published application. The use of “suction means” in claim 15 is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) because claim 15 provides additional structure to define the suction means as a suction pump.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoru (JP2019186509A – previously of record).
In reference to claim 1:
Satoru discloses a sheet fixing apparatus for fixing a multilayer sheet (para 0013), comprising: a support stage for supporting the multilayer sheet (Fig. 2 numeral 21 and 21a-c), the support stage having a plate-shaped member having a flat surface on which the multilayer sheet is placeable (Fig. 2 numeral 21c), a suction hole provided at a position corresponding to an outer peripheral portion of the multilayer sheet in the plate-shaped member (Fig. 2 peripheral suction 23), and a step portion provided along an outside of the suction hole in the plate-shaped member (Fig. 2 numeral 21b); and suction means capable of sucking the multilayer sheet toward the support stage via the suction hole (para 0034). Satoru further discloses the substrate suction device corrects for warpage and flattens the substrate (para 0025) and the flat state of substrate suction device and warped workpiece improves the precision of grinding and polishing (para 0060). Satoru does not explicitly disclose wherein the flat surface has a flatness of 0.30 mm or less as defined by JIS B0621-1984. However, it is the Examiner’s position that as the object if Satoru is to obtain a flat workpiece it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the stage as flat as practicable, including the claimed 0.30 mm or less as defined by JIS B0621-1984, in order to have the most precision grinding and polishing.
In reference to claim 2:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Satoru does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance between the suction hole and the step portion is 30 mm or less. However, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
In reference to claim 3:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Satoru further discloses wherein the suction hole has a recessed portion , and the recessed portion is provided with at least one through-hole penetrating through the plate-shaped member (Fig. 2; see para 0064 of Applicant’s Specification as published disclosing “A shape of the through-hole may coincide with or may not coincide with the surface shape of the suction hole 24. In other words, the surface size (hole diameter) of the through-hole provided in the recessed portion may be smaller than the surface size of the suction hole 24.”).
In reference to claim 12:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Satoru further discloses wherein the support stage further comprises a plurality of auxiliary suction holes, separately from the suction hole (Fig. 2).
In reference to claim 13:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Satoru further discloses wherein the suction means comprises a lower stage disposed on a side opposite to the flat surface of the plate-shaped member, and the lower stage comprises a gas flow path communicating with the suction hole (Fig. 2).
In reference to claim 14:
In addition to the discussion of claim 12, above, Satoru further discloses wherein the suction means comprises a lower stage disposed on a side opposite to the flat surface of the plate-shaped member, and the lower stage comprises a gas flow path communicating with the suction hole and the auxiliary suction holes (Fig. 2).
In reference to claim 15:
In addition to the discussion of claim 13, above, Satoru further discloses wherein the suction means further comprises a suction pump connected to the gas flow path (section 0034, it is the Examiner’s position that “suction device” would disclose a “suction pump” within the broadest reasonable interpretation to a person having ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2111).
Claim(s) 3, 5, 6, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoru as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Nakaya (JP2014216440A).
In reference to claim 3:
Alternatively, in the event it is determined Satoru does not disclose wherein the suction hole has a recessed portion , and the recessed portion is provided with at least one through-hole penetrating through the plate-shaped member, this would have been obvious in view of Nakaya. Nakaya teaches an adsorption plate for wafer processing (para 0001). Nakaya further teaches that providing the vacuum holes with a chamfer in order to prevent scratches (para 0024). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Satoru with the chamfered vacuum holes of Nakaya in order to prevent scratches.
In reference to claim 5:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Satoru does not explicitly disclose wherein when the support stage is seen in plan view, a shape of the suction hole is at least one selected from a group consisting of a circular shape or an arc shape. However, the selection of a known shape, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). As applied to the instant application, Nakaya teaches a vacuum adsorption plate for wafer processing (para 0001). Nakaya further teaches wherein the suction hole is a circular or arc shape (para 0024, Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a suction hole having a circular or an arc shape because each shape is known in the art as suitable for the intended use.
In reference to claim 6:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Satoru further discloses wherein the support stage has a plurality of suction holes but does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of suction holes are configured as an aggregate that brings about a circle or an arc. However, the selection of a known shape/design, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). As applied to the instant application, Nakaya teaches a vacuum adsorption plate for wafer processing (para 0001). Nakaya further teaches wherein the plurality of suction holes are configured as an aggregate that brings about a circle or an arc (para 0024, Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the suction holes to bring about a circular or an arc shape because each shape is known in the art as suitable for the intended use.
In reference to claim 11:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Satoru does not explicitly disclose wherein at least an end portion on the suction hole side of the step portion is rounded. However, this would have been obvious in view of Nakaya. Nakaya teaches an adsorption plate for wafer processing (para 0001). Nakaya further teaches that providing the vacuum holes with a chamfer in order to prevent scratches (para 0024). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Satoru with the chamfered vacuum holes of Nakaya in order to prevent scratches.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoru as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Shigeru (JPH03282472A).
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Satoru further discloses wherein when the support stage is seen in plan view, the suction hole has a shape along a contour of the multilayer sheet but does not disclose in the suction hole, a partition wall provided parallel to the contour of the multilayer sheet is present to divide the suction hole into a plurality of suction regions. However, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). As applied to the instant application, Shigeru teaches an apparatus for holding a flat substrate, such as a wafer or printed circuit board, using vacuum (page 3 ln 1-7). Shigeru further teaches wherein in the suction hole a partition wall is provided parallel to the contour of the multilayer sheet to divide the suction hole into a plurality of suction regions (page 4 ln 14-21). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the suction hole of Satoru with the partitioned suction hole of Shigeru because each element is known in the art for providing vacuum suction and the combination yields predictable results, i.e. the object is held using a known suction hole.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoru as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Suhara (US20020154491A1).
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Satoru does not disclose wherein the support stage has a positioning pin for positioning the outer peripheral portion of the multilayer sheet onto the suction hole, on a top surface side of the flat surface. However, this would have been obvious in view of Suhara. Suhara teaches an apparatus for holding a flat object such as a printed circuit board (abstract). Suhara further teaches using positioning pins in order to position the flat object on the support stage (para 0089). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Satoru with the positioning pins of Suhara in order to obtain an apparatus which correctly positions the flat object.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoru as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Nakamura (US20200113066A1).
In reference to claim 8:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Satoru further discloses that the roughness of the plate-like member can require the use of an seal (para 0035) but does not disclose wherein the flat surface has an arithmetic average roughness Ra of 0.01 μm or more and 0.50 μm or less. However, a rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (See MPEP 2143 and 2143.02). As applied to the instant application, Nakamura teaches a vacuum adsorption plate for producing a laminate, specifically a multilayered circuit board (paras 0008-0012). Nakamura further teaches using a surface with an arithmetic average roughness RA of 0.1 to 70 nm (.0001-.07 μm). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plate-like member having an arithmetic average roughness of 0.1-70 nm in the apparatus of Satoru because all of the claimed elements are known in the art and the combination yields predictable results, i.e. the object is held by a plate-like member having a roughness known as suitable for holding flat objects.
In reference to claim 9:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Satoru does not disclose wherein the plate-shaped member has a Vickers hardness of 10 HV or more and 3000 HV or less. However, this would have been obvious in view of Nakamura. Nakamura teaches a vacuum adsorption plate for producing a laminate, specifically a multilayered circuit board (paras 0008-0012). Nakamura further teaches that in order to ensure flatness when the object is mounted the support has a Vickers hardness of 500-3000 HV (para 0045). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the apparatus of Satoru with a support having a hardness of 500-3000 HV in order to ensure flatness when the object is mounted.
In reference to claim 10:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Satoru does not disclose wherein the plate-shaped member is composed of stainless steel. However, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). As applied to the instant application, Nakamura teaches a vacuum adsorption plate for producing a laminate, specifically a multilayered circuit board (paras 0008-0012). Nakamura further teaches using a plate-shaped member composed of stainless steel (para 0024). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select stainless steel for the plate-shaped member based on its suitability for the intended use of a vacuum suction stage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW L SWANSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1724. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0800-1900 and every other Friday 0800-1600.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/ANDREW L SWANSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745