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 .
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: light source component which has been interpreted as a bulb or plurality of bulbs and equivalents thereto as set forth in the specification, e.g., at paras. 29; temperature measuring component, first temperature measuring element and second temperature measuring element, first backup component and second backup component have all/each been interpreted as a thermocouple, an infrared sensor or any other temperature monitoring mechanism and equivalents thereto as set forth in the specification, e.g., at paras. 29; lifting system in claims 12 and 24 wherein no specific structure was located in the specification, see related rejections under 35 USC 112, a, b.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: claims 3 and 14 heating component which is further defined in the claims as a light source; claim 12 alarm elements wherein alarm is considered sufficient structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 12 and 24-26 are 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, “lifting system”, 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. Examiner unable to find any specific structure for the lifting system in the specification. Nevertheless, the claims have been interpreted as claimed. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence.
Clarification and/or correction is requested.
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 12 and 24-26 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence. Claim 12 and 24 limitation “lifting assembly” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See above for claim interpretation.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
By claim construction, claim 25 includes all the features of claims 23 and 24, wherein claim 23 recites “the temperature-difference controller includes a first temperature controller and a second temperature controller”. Thus, for clarity, claim 25 should refer to either the first temperature controller or the second temperature controller, as necessary. Limitation “the temperature-difference controller is further configured to compare the internal temperature of the of the degassing chamber with the preset temperature, and control the heating component according to a comparison result to maintain the internal temperature of the degassing chamber at the preset temperature” is unclear. It appears to be left over from previous claim amendments. In addition to lacking clarity, it also appears to be unnecessary as this feature is more clearly claimed in claim 23 and the preceding paragraph of claim 25. Similarly, it is unclear what/how the claim 25 limitation “the first temperature controller is further configured to receive the internal temperature of the first chamber sent by the first temperature measuring element…” is meant to add to the claimed invention. Claim 25 in particular includes overlapping and repetitive limitations.
Clarifications and/or corrections are requested in all instances.
Additionally, Applicant should check all claims to ensure the clarity of the presently claimed invention. In particular, Applicant and Applicant’s attorneys are requested to consider the clarity of the invention as a whole, as currently set forth. If possible, Applicant and Applicant’s attorneys are encouraged to edit and streamline the claimed invention in order to simplify and potentially advance examination more expeditiously.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3, 8-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0155652 to Burgess et al. in view of JP Publication 2009/032998 to Suzuki et al., JP H10270454-A to Nakano et al. and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2008/0170842 to Hunter et al.
Regarding claim 3: Burgess et al. discloses a degassing chamber (Fig. 1, 10 and Fig. 2, 102) substantially as claimed and comprising:
a temperature controller, configured to heat the degassing chamber to provide an internal temperature at a preset temperature (see, e.g., para. 15), the temperature controller including a heating component (18) configured to heat the degassing chamber;
a transfer controller (see, e.g., Fig. 2, 112) configured to control a manipulator (i.e., suitable substrate transport mechanism in 108) to transfer substrates to be degassed into the degassing chamber to heat the substrates for a preset period of time and take the substrates out after the preset period of time of the heating;
a substrate container (16) for carrying the substrate to be degassed; and
a housing (12),
wherein a substrate transferring opening (14) is formed on a sidewall of the housing, and the substrate transferring opening provides a path for transferring the substrates into or out from the housing; the substrate container is movable in the housing along a vertical direction (i.e., using a lift assembly, see, e.g., paras. 48-55 and Figs. 1-2); the heating component includes a first light source component (18 in top portion of the degassing chamber); and a second light source component (18 in top portion of the degassing chamber); the housing is divided into a first chamber and a second chamber by the substrate transferring opening; the first light source component is located inside the first chamber, the second light source component is located inside the second chamber; the first light source component and the second light source component are configured to heat the substrates to be degassed in the substrate container.
However, Burgess et al. fail to explicitly disclose each of the first light source component and the second light source component having a cylinder shape surround the substrate container and extending along the vertical direction, nor do they disclose the degassing chamber further including a first reflection tube.
In Figs. 1-2 and the accompanying text, Suzuki et al. disclose a heat treatment device capable of degassing having a first light source component having a cylinder shape (30) (i.e. a plurality of light sources provided in a cylindrical shaped arrangement) that surround substrate container (20) and extending along the vertical direction for the purpose of performing light irradiation under substantially uniform conditions such that heat treatment can be performed more reliably in a state where temperature distribution of wafers is uniform (see attached translation).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the degassing chamber of Burgess et al. having the first light source component and the second light source component having a cylinder shape that surround the substrate container and extend along the vertical direction in order to perform light irradiation under substantially uniform conditions such that heat treatment can be performed more reliably in a state where temperature distribution of wafers is uniform as taught by Suzuki et al.
In Figs. 1-2 and the accompanying text, Suzuki et al. disclose a heat treatment device capable of degassing including a first reflection tube (inner surfaces of 12 and 16), the first reflection tube having a cylindrical structure (as it conforms to the tubular shape of chamber 12) disposed between a first light source component (30) and a first chamber (12) without contacting the first light source component (as schematically illustrated), extending along a vertical direction, and surrounding the first light component, and the first reflection tube including a top plate (i.e. top surface) covering an end of the cylindrical structure to cause one of the substrates at an upper end of the substrate container to be exposed by irradiation to the of the first light source component for the purpose of, inter alia, multiply reflecting light radiated by the first light source component such that heat treatment is uniformly performed (see attached translation).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the degassing chamber of Burgess et al. having a first reflection tube, the first reflection tube having a cylindrical structure disposed between a first light source component and a first chamber without contacting the first light source component, extending along a vertical direction, and surrounding the first light component, and the first reflection tube including a top plate covering an end of the cylindrical structure to cause one of the substrates at an upper end of the substrate container to be exposed by irradiation to the of the first light source component in order to multiply reflected light radiated by the first light source component such that heat treatment is uniformly performed as taught by Suzuki et al.
Modified Burgess et al. further fail to disclose additional details of the temperature controller, which also includes a temperate measuring component and a temperature-difference controller. Although notably, Suzuki et al. does teach that thermocouples may be provided so that substrates are processed in a set temperature state. In particular, modified Burgess et al. fail to teach the temperature measuring component includes a first temperature measuring component and a first backup component, and the first temperature measuring element and the first backup component are mounted on the first reflection tube to perform temperature detection measurements thereof in a contact manner, and the temperature difference controller is configured to determine whether a difference between the temperature of the first reflection tube sent by the first temperature measuring element and the temperature of the first reflection tube sent by the first backup component is within a preset range.
In various embodiments, Nakano et al. disclose provision of a temperature measuring component comprising a first measuring component (see, e.g., Figs. 3-4, 3a) and a first backup component (6a) and a temperature difference controller (7), and the temperature difference controller is configured to determine whether a difference between a temperature measured by the first temperature measuring component and a temperature measured by the first backup component are within a present range (e.g. by recognizing when the first temperature measuring component is unstable or cannot be used) for the purpose of providing improved functionality and reliability without stopping operation (see, e.g., translation).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a temperature measuring component comprising a first measuring component and a first backup component and a temperature difference controller, and the temperature difference controller is configured to determine whether a difference between a temperature measured by the first temperature measuring component a temperature measured by the first backup component are within a present range (e.g. by recognizing when the first temperature measuring component is unstable or cannot be used) in order to provide improved functionality and reliability without stopping operation as taught by Nakano et al.
Finally, regarding the feature of the first temperature measuring element and the first backup component are mounted on the first reflection tube to perform temperature detection measurements thereof in a contact manner Hunter et al. discloses providing temperature measuring elements on a reflection plate provided on a wall of a chamber for the purpose of measuring temperature or thermal properties of a substrate (see, e.g., abstract and para. 29). Examiner also notes that the courts have ruled the mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), wherein changing the position of the temperature measuring elements of Suzuki et al. or Nakano et al. is considered a rearrangement of parts.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have alternatively provided the first temperature measuring element and the first backup component mounted on the first reflection tube to perform temperature detection measurements thereof in a contact manner in order to measure temperature or thermal properties of a substrate as taught by Hunter et al.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, in modified Burgess et al., it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have mirrored the temperature control features discussed above, including the first reflecting tube for the second chamber of Burgess et al. in order to provide all the same effects provided for the first chamber using a second reflection tube located between a sidewall of the second chamber and the second light source component, the first reflection tube and the and the second reflection tube configured to reflect light irradiated thereon toward substates capable of being degassed in the substrate container. Additionally, Burgess et al. (see, e.g., Fig. 1) disclose the substrate transfer opening is formed on a first side of the sidewall of the housing and a second side of the sidewall of the housing is opposite to the first side of the sidewall of the housing. Regarding the sizing of the first reflection tube and the second reflection tube and openings provided therein for the purpose introducing substrates and/or providing features for pumping the chamber, etc., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic to provided them with the necessary positioning and dimensions for these processes while also optimizing their ability to act as a reflector (e.g., providing a first end of the first reflection tube and a first end of the second reflection tube closer to the first side of the sidewall of the housing than the second side of the sidewall of the housing, a second end of the first reflection tube and a second end of the second reflection tube are closer to the second side of the sidewall of the housing than the first sidewall of the housing, and a distance between the first end of the first reflection tube and the first end of the second reflection tube is greater than zero [at least because of transferring opening], and a distance between the second end of the first reflection tube and the second end of the second reflection tube is greater than zero [at least because of pumping port]). Additionally, the courts ruled in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claims 10-11, modified Burgess et al. discloses the chamber substantially as claimed and as described above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a second temperature measuring element, second backup component and second temperature controller for the second reflection tube similar to the first reflection tube as described above to achieve similar effects and results, as addressed above with respect to the relied upon prior art. Additionally, the court have ruled the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to claim 13, in modified Burgess et al., at least Suzuki et al. and Nakano et al. disclose temperature measuring components may include a thermocouple or an infrared sensor.
With respect to claims 14, modified Burgess et al. as set forth above addresses all claimed features as at least Burgess et al. is capable of processing semiconductor substrates.
Claim(s) 4, 15, 18-21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Burgess et al. as applied to claims 3, 8-11 and 13-14 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,900,177 to Lecouras et al.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, modified Burgess et al. disclose the chamber substantially as claimed and as described above and configured to detect the internal temperature of the degassing chamber in real time as the internal temperature of the degassing chamber.
However, modified Burgess et al. fail to explicitly disclose the temperature-difference controller, configured to compare the internal temperature of the degassing chamber with the preset temperature, and control the heating component according to a comparison result to maintain the internal temperature of the degassing chamber at the preset temperature.
Lecouras et al. teach providing a temperature-difference controller (Fig. 2, 58n) in a process chamber, configured to compare the internal temperature of the process chamber with a preset temperature, and control a heating component according to a comparison result to maintain the internal temperature of the process chamber at the preset temperature such that a desired constant stepless temperature gradient is achieved within the process chamber (see, e.g., column 4, rows 16-45).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a temperature-difference controller in the degassing chamber of modified Burgess et al., configured to compare the internal temperature of the degassing chamber with a preset temperature, and control the heating component according to a comparison result to maintain the internal temperature of the degassing chamber at the preset temperature such that a desired constant stepless temperature gradient is achieved within the degassing chamber as taught by Lecouras et al.
With respect to claim 18, in modified Burgess et al., it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have mirrored the first temperature measuring element, the first temperature controller, first reflecting tube, etc. for the second chamber in order to provide all the same effects and results as addressed above.
With respect to claims 19-20, the claimed features have already been addressed above with respect to modified Burgess et al. and/or are merely duplication and mirroring of features already discussed with respect to the first chamber that are also provided in the second chamber.
With respect to claim 21, Nakano et al. teaches inclusion of an alarm element to generate an alarm when an abnormal temperature or temperature differential is detected amongst the thermocouples (see translation). It would have been obvious to provide the same for each of the first and second chamber and their constituent parts to detect an abnormal temperature.
With respect to claims 23, all features are addressed above with respect to modified Burgess et al.
Claim(s) 12 and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Burgess et al. as applied to claims 4, 15, 18-21 and 23 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,352,593 to Brors et al.
Modified Burgess et al. disclose the degassing chamber substantially as claimed and as described above.
With respect to claim 12, Nakano et al. teaches inclusion of an alarm element to generate an alarm when an abnormal temperature or temperature differential is detected amongst the thermocouples (see translation).
Additionally, with respect to claims 12 and 24, in modified Burgess et al., Burgess et al. disclose the degassing chamber includes a lifting system (“lifting assembly”) configured to drive the substrate container to be lifted and lowered (see, e.g., para. 48 and inclusive of illustrated rod/shaft (not numbered).
However, modified Burgess et al., fail to explicitly disclose the substrate container includes a base, a top cover, and a bottom cover, the base is provided with a plurality of slots for placing the substrates to be degassed, the top cover and the bottom cover are respectively disposed at two opposite ends of the base; and the lifting system penetrates a bottom of the housing, is connected to the bottom cover of the substrate container, and a thermal insulation is disposed at a joint position of the lifting system and the bottom cover to isolate heat conduction between the substrate container and the lifting system.
Brors et al. disclose a chamber capable of degassing having a substrate container (see, e.g., Figs. 5-10, 46) includes a base (not independently numbered, side portions with slots), a top cover (not independently numbered), and a bottom cover (not independently numbered), the base is provided with a plurality of slots (not independently numbered, see aforementioned figures) for placing the substrates to be degassed, the top cover and the bottom cover are respectively disposed at two opposite ends of the base; and a lifting system (e.g., 48 and 600) penetrates a bottom of a housing (22), is connected to the bottom cover of the substrate container, and a thermal insulation (62) is disposed at a joint position of the lifting system and the bottom cover to isolate heat conduction between the substrate container and the lifting system (see, e.g., column 7, row 31 through column 8, row 65) wherein the container is provided as such to process a batch of substrates, the lifting system is provided for loading, unloading and positioning substrates in the chamber and the thermal insulation allows for thermally isolating a top portion of the housing from a bottom portion of the housing including the majority of the lifting system (see, e.g., column 7, row 31 through column 8, row 65).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in modified Burgess et al. a substrate container including a base, a top cover, and a bottom cover, the base is provided with a plurality of slots for placing the substrates to be degassed, the top cover and the bottom cover are respectively disposed at two opposite ends of the base; and a lifting system that penetrates a bottom of a housing, is connected to the bottom cover of the substrate container, and a thermal insulation is disposed at a joint position of the lifting system and the bottom cover -- wherein the container is provided as such to process a batch of substrates, the lifting system is provided for loading, unloading and positioning substrates in the chamber and the thermal insulation allows for thermally isolating portions of the apparatus there above from portions there below including the majority of the lifting system all as taught by Brors et al.
With respect to claims 25-26, all features are addressed above with respect to modified Burgess et al. in similar claims and rejected on the same grounds.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) amended and new claims 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. Additionally, rejections of previously presented claims have been modified as set forth above.
Regarding Applicant’s traversal of claim interpretations under 35 USC 112f, Examiner notes that as stated above and in the previous office action, “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.”
Examiner also notes that Applicant’s generic traversals, regarding non-amended claims, do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. In order to expedite examination, Applicant is encouraged to set forth specific traversals with reasoning and or evidence, on the record, for Examiner’s consideration, especially those related to the crux of the invention (i.e. temperature measuring and temperature control features of the claimed apparatus that are believed to distinguish over the relied upon prior art as set forth in the rejections above), rather than generically stating the claimed inventions are not obvious over the relied upon prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent and Patent Pubs. 5445676; 2002/0017377; 2012/014079 disclose apparatus capable of degassing and including a cassette/boat/container and/or a lifting assembly and/or thermal insulation.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached on (571) 272-1435. 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights