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 Species I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 8/25/2026 is acknowledged.
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(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (3,652,075) in view of Baber et al (US 6,422,548 B1).
Regarding claim 1¸ as seen in figs7-8, Thompson (‘075) discloses a substrate adsorption device (fig7) comprising: a stage (fig7) including first adsorption passages 16,18 (col.5 line24) and having an upper surface 14 (col.5 lines18-19) allowing a product 70 (fig7) to be placed on the upper surface 14 (fig7); and a mask 50b (col.5 line23) having a shape substantially identical to a shape of the product 70 (fig7, col.5 lines19-23), and including second adsorption holes 52b (col.5 line24), wherein in case that the mask 50b engages the stage, the second adsorption holes 52b are positioned to register with the first adsorption passages 16,18 in a plan view (fig8, col.5 lines24-27). However, Thompson does not explicitly disclose that the stage includes an insert portion that the mask is inserted into the stage therealong and a use of holes instead of passages. Instead, Thompson discloses that the mask is placed on the upper surface and a seal is used to seat a closed suction area. Baber et al (‘548) teaches a use of a stage 210 (col.8 line9, figs5-8) including first adsorption holes 34 (col.8 lines25-26) and an insert port (fig8) where a mask 240 (col.8 lines15-16) with second adsorption holes 245 (col.8 lines49-50) is inserted into the stage 210 (fig8) wherein the second adsorption holes 245 are aligned with some of the first adsorption holes 34 in a plan view when supporting the product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thompson to use an insert port to insert a mask, as taught by Baber et al, so that the mask can be more securely positioned and be protected from foreign substances such as debris of a substrate and that there is no need to use a seal.
Regarding claim 2¸ the combination of Thompson and Baber et al teaches the substrate adsorption device according to claim 1, wherein the first adsorption holes are positioned in the upper surface (Thompson-fig7, Baber et al-fig8) of the stage and the first adsorption holes communicate with an internal space (Baber et al, where the mask is positioned within) of the insert portion (Baber et al).
Regarding claim 3¸ the combination of Thompson and Baber et al teaches the substrate adsorption device according to claim 1, wherein the stage further includes a vacuum hole (a port where a vacuum is supplied through into the first adsorption passages 16,18, col.5 lines48-54, Thompson; 22-col.8 lines17-18, Baber et al), the vacuum hole is positioned in a lower surface of the stage (Baber et al, fig8), and the vacuum hole communicates with an internal space of the insert port (Baber et al).
Regarding claim 4¸ the combination of Thompson and Baber et al teaches the substrate adsorption device according to claim 1. Thompson as modified by Baber et al teaches wherein holes of the first adsorption holes that are aligned with the second adsorption holes form a vacuum region corresponding to the shape of the product (figs7-8).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Thompson and Baber et al teaches the substrate adsorption device according to claim 1. Baber et al further teaches a size of each of the first adsorption holes 34 is substantially identical to a size of each of the second adsorption holes 245, and each arrangement interval between the first adsorption holes 34 is substantially identical to each arrangement interval between the second adsorption holes 245. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thompson to use substantially same size first and second adsorption holes, as further taught by Baber et al, so that the aligned holes make a continuous passage for vacuum.
Regarding claim 6¸ the combination of Thompson and Baber et al teaches the substrate adsorption device according to claim 1. Thompson as modified by Baber et al teaches wherein the first adsorption holes are arranged in parallel in a first direction (along a length of the stage, fig7) and a second direction (along width of the stage, fig7).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Thompson and Baber et al teaches the substrate adsorption device according to claim 6, wherein the insert port is formed by etching in the first direction (fig7 of Baber et al, along a length of the stage).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Thompson and Baber et al teaches the substrate adsorption device according to claim 6. Thompson as modified by Baber et al teaches wherein the first adsorption holes and the second adsorption holes are formed by etching in a third direction (along a height of the stage) perpendicular to the first direction (along the length of the stage) and the second direction (along the width of the stage).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seahee Hong whose telephone number is (571)270-5778. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-4pm ET.
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.
/SEAHEE HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights