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
New claims 27 and 28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. See Actions sent on 09/16/2025 and 10/09/2025 for details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. New claim 26 recites that the vacuum channel comprises “exactly one opening”, however the specification as filed is silent as to the vacuum channel having exactly one opening. The Examiner notes that although the drawings show one opening, this does not necessarily mean that there is “exactly one” opening.
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 23 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 23 recites that there is “a pressure differential between the chuck surface and the substrate” in lines 1-2. However, it is unclear how exactly this “pressure differential” between the chuck surface and the substrate is actually being set forth or generated. How exactly this pressure differential is being defined? Further clarification is needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 10-2018-0116152 (hereafter—KR’152--).
A machine translation of the KR’152 will be provided herein. Refer to the Machine Translation for details.
In regards to claim 1, KR’152 discloses a substrate chucking apparatus (3), comprising: a body (31) having a chucking surface (31a); a shaft (30) coupled to the body (31) opposite to the chucking surface (31a); a chucking electrode (34) disposed within the body (31); and a vacuum channel (38a) formed within the body (31), the vacuum channel capable of being configured to provide a vacuum pressure between 1mTorr to 1000mTorr to the chucking surface (31a). Since the vacuum channel 38a communicates with air supply source comprising a vacuum generator, then KR’152’s vacuum channel 38a is capable of providing a vacuum pressure between 1mTorr to 1000mTorr to the chucking surface.
In regards to claim 2, KR’152 discloses the substrate chucking apparatus of claim 1, KR’152 also discloses that the chucking surface (31a) comprises one or more channels (31b) in fluid communication with the vacuum channel (38a).
In regards to claim 3, KR’152 discloses the substrate chucking apparatus of claim 1, KR’152 also discloses a plurality of grooves (3ab) formed on the chucking surface (31a).
In regards to claim 4, KR’152 discloses the substrate chucking apparatus of claim 1, KR’152 also discloses that the vacuum channel (38a) further comprises an opening located in the center of the chucking surface (31a) (refer to opening 31b that is axially aligned and fluidly connected to vacuum channel 38a).
In regards to claim 5, KR’152 discloses the substrate chucking apparatus of claim 1, KR’152 also discloses a vacuum pump (38) fluidly coupled to the vacuum channel (38a).
In regards to claim 6, KR’152 discloses the substrate chucking apparatus of claim 1, KR’152 also discloses that the body (31) is formed of a dielectric material (as in page 2, second paragraph of the Description of Embodiments, of the Machine Translation attached).
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) 1-4, 22, 24, 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Li et al. US 2022/0122873 (hereafter—Li--).
In regards to claim 1, Li discloses (Figures 1 or 5) a substrate chucking apparatus (101), comprising: a body (107/500) having a chucking surface (refer to chucking surface where substrate 121 is directly disposed on); a shaft (104) coupled to the body (107) opposite to the chucking surface (see at least Figure 1); a chucking electrode (172 or 174) disposed within the body (107); and a vacuum channel (182) formed within the body (107); the vacuum channel capable of being configured to provide a vacuum pressure between 1mTorr to 1000mTorr to the chucking surface (chucking surface where substrate 121 is directly disposed on). Since the channel 182 is disclosed as being a “vacuum” channel, then it inherently has to be connected to a vacuum source so as to provide a vacuum through the vacuum channel 182, then Li’s vacuum channel 182 is capable of providing a vacuum pressure between 1mTorr to 1000mTorr to the chucking surface.
If the applicant considers that the interpretation of the claim(s) under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, i.e., is or may be in dispute under given the current interpretation, the current under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is appropriate. See MPEP §§ 2111- 2116.01.
If the applicant considers that the current interpretation of Li fails to explicitly teach that “the vacuum channel” is connected to a vacuum source, the Examiner takes Official Notice on the fact that in order to generate a vacuum through a vacuum channel, the channel has to be connected to a vacuum source and thus provide vacuum and hold a substrate (see for example, the teachings of KR 10-2009-0094004 in section 13 below). Accordingly, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to modify Li to include a vacuum source to provide vacuum at a vacuum pressure through the vacuum channel and hold the substrate.
In regards to claim 2, Li discloses the substrate chucking apparatus of claim 1, Li also discloses that the chucking surface comprises one or more channels (grooves or mesas as in paragraph [0027] or one or more vacuum ports as in paragraph [0032]) in fluid communication with the vacuum channel (182).
In regards to claim 3, Li discloses the substrate chucking apparatus of claim 1, Li also discloses a plurality of grooves or ridges (grooves or mesas as in paragraph [0027]) formed on the chucking surface.
In regards to claim 4, Li discloses the substrate chucking apparatus of claim 1, Li also discloses that the vacuum channel (182) further comprises an opening located in the center of the chucking surface (see Figure 1 or see 530 in Figure 5).
In regards to claim 22, Li discloses the substrate chucking apparatus of claim 1, Li also discloses that the chucking surface is configured to support a substrate (121) (see Figure 1).
In regards to claim 24, Li discloses the substrate chucking apparatus of claim 22, Li also discloses that the vacuum pressure is capable of pulling a middle of the substrate (121) towards the chucking surface (see Figure 1).
In regards to claim 25, Li discloses the substrate chucking apparatus of claim 22, Li also discloses that the vacuum pressure is capable of chucking the substrate (121) to the chucking surface (see Figure 1).
In regards to claim 26, Li discloses the substrate chucking apparatus of claim 1, Li also discloses that the vacuum channel (182) further comprises exactly one opening (in the same way as presented by Applicant, see Figure 1), wherein the opening is located in a center of the chucking surface (see Figure 1).
Claim(s) 5, 21, 23 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. US 2022/0122873 (hereafter—Li--) as applied to claim 1 and 22 above and in further view of KR 10-2009-0094004 (hereafter—KR’004--).
A machine translation of the KR’004 will be provided herein. Refer to the Machine Translation for details.
In regards to claim 5, Li discloses the substrate chucking apparatus of claim 1, Li also discloses that the vacuum channel (182) has a vacuum source.
Although there is a suggestion that the vacuum channel has to be coupled to a vacuum pump, this is not explicitly disclosed.
Nevertheless, KR’004 teaches that it is well known in the art to have a substrate chucking apparatus (Figure 1), comprising: a body (35) having a chucking surface (36); a vacuum channel (38) formed within the body (35); the vacuum channel fluidly coupled to a vacuum pump (40). The vacuum pump providing a source of vacuum to the channel so as to enable the chuck to hold a substate.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to provide Li with a vacuum pump in order to provide a source of vacuum going through the vacuum channel and thus hold a substrate being machined.
In regards to claim 21, Li discloses the substrate chucking apparatus of claim 1, Li also discloses that the body is made of a material; however, it is silent as to the material being aluminum nitride.
Nevertheless, KR’004 teaches it is well known in the art to have a substrate chucking apparatus (Figure 1), comprising: a body (35) of aluminum nitride (see Machine Translation attached for details).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have the body of Li be made of aluminum nitride, based on the teachings of KR’004 since it has been held that the selection of a known material is based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07 (“The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
In regards to claim 23, Li as modified discloses the substrate chucking apparatus of claim 22, Li as modified also discloses that inherently there is a pressure differential between the chucking surface and the substrate.
However, fails to disclose that the pressure differential is between a range of about 1mTorr to about 50 mTorr.
Nevertheless, KR’004 teaches that it is well known in the art to have a vacuum pump (40) connected to a vacuum channel (38) so as to produce pressure differentials to enhance fluid flow through a substrate being machined (see Machine Translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicant’s invention was filed to have the pressure differential of Li be between a range of about 1mTorr to about 50 mTorr, based on the teachings of KR’004 of enhancing fluid flow through a substrate, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routing skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 27, Li as modified discloses the substrate chucking apparatus of claim 5, Li as modified also discloses that the vacuum pump (40 of KR’004) is capable of decreasing the vacuum pressure within the vacuum channel (182 of Li).
Response to Arguments
Rejections not based on Prior Art
In view of Applicant's amendments, the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claims 2 and 4has been withdrawn.
In view of Applicant's amendments, a new 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claims 23 and 26 has been incorporated as aforementioned.
Rejections based on Prior Art
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument in pages 5-6 that neither KR’152 or Li disclose that “the vacuum channel (is) configured to provide a vacuum pressure to the chucking surface, wherein the vacuum pressure is between 1mTorr to 1000mTorr”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Since both KR’152 and Li each disclose a vacuum channel, in KR’152 explicitly connected and in Li inherently connected to a vacuum source, then each of the vacuum channels of KR’152 and Li are indeed capable of performing the intended use of providing a vacuum pressure between 1mTorr to 1000mTorr.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE N RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5134. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:00 am -5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/NICOLE N RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722