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
Applicant has amended the claim to require direct contact of the substrate holder with respect to the substrate. Although, the original disclosure does not explicitly teach this feature, the view from Fig. 4 appears to illustrate the same. In consideration of the overall disclosure, Examiner has assumed that “direct contact” may be apparent contact from a view similar to Fig. 4 (i.e. -- as deciphered from provided view in figures). Examiner notes that in Figure 4, the sealing bar is explicitly disclosed as holding the substrate and that there is no drawing showing all relevant components from a straightforward front or back view.
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 1-7 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 1 continues to include “side surfaces”, which appear to correspond also recited “a surface of the substrate carrier facing the sealing surface”. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the language refer to the same feature(s) and has examined accordingly. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP Patent Pub. No. 2017/015633 to Ilo in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,309,525 to Futagawa et al. and WO 2015/174981 to Jee et al.
Regarding claim 1: Ilo discloses an arrangement substantially as claimed and comprising: a substrate carrier (see, e.g., Fig. 5, 20 – including at least 22a, 26; also see translation wherein it is taught that the substrate carrier transports the substrate through the process chambers 121-125 of the apparatus (arrangement)) configured for directly contacting and supporting a substrate (as deciphered from provided view in figures, see claim interpretation above); a process chamber guide (e.g., Figs. 3 and 5, 61; also see translation wherein it is taught that 61 is fixed to a bottom plate of a chamber 121-125) configured for the straight-line guidance of the substrate carrier that is displaceable in the process chamber guide in a guiding direction (corresponding to arrangement direction of chambers 121-125), so that, by displacement of the substrate carrier into a processing position, a bounding of the process chamber guide comprises at least in some areas the substrate carrier; a sealing surface (surfaces facing the process chamber guide) that extends parallel to the guiding direction and is configured and arranged in the process chamber guide, in the processing position; and a sealing bar (22b) configured for directly contacting and supporting the substrate (as deciphered from provided view in figures), the sealing bar is adjacent the substrate carrier and extends in the guiding direction.
However, Ilo fails to teach the processing chamber guide vertically overlaps side surfaces of the substrate carrier and in a substate processing area near a perimeter of a substrate at a substrate carrier contacting and holding the substrate such that a sealing surface in the vicinity thereof is adapted to be at least 0.02 mm and less than 1 mm from a surface of the substrate carrier facing the sealing surface or in the vicinity of the sealing bar such that it is spaced by less than 0.3 mm from the process chamber guide.
In Figs. 1-12, Futagawa et al. disclose a process chamber guide (multiple parts, including, e.g., Fig. 3, 13 and outside wall portions of chamber 4) configured for straight-line guidance of a substrate carrier (8) (i.e., the substrate carrier does not move in the direction of the process chamber guide), wherein the processing chamber guide vertically overlaps side surfaces of the substrate carrier, as best illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4, and is arranged in a substate processing area near a perimeter of a substrate at the substrate carrier, contacting and holding the substrate, such that a sealing surface in the vicinity thereof is adapted so that a film is not formed on the substrate, a substrate holder (carrier) or a vacuum chamber except at prescribed portions. Additionally, the configuration allows for easy maintenance (see, e.g., column 2, rows through column 3, row 17; column 4, row 56 through column 5, row 24; column 6, rows 15-26). Futagawa et al. teach that the distance may be selected according to apparatus structure. Note: Futagawa et al. use a single structure to support the substrate. However, in modified Ilo, which uses a two-part substrate carrier and sealing bar for holding the substrate, a distance between both features will necessarily be set/selected with respect to the process chamber guide.
Regarding the exact value of space between, the process chamber guide and each of the substrate carrier and the sealing bar, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); and where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is 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 is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. 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).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the processing chamber guide in Ilo such that the processing chamber guide vertically overlaps side surfaces of the substrate carrier and is arranged in a substate processing area/processing position near a perimeter of a substrate at the substrate carrier, contacting and holding the substrate, such that a sealing surface in the vicinity thereof near a perimeter of the substrate at the substrate carrier such that a sealing surface in the vicinity thereof is adapted to be at an optimized distance from a surface of the substrate carrier facing the sealing surface or in the vicinity of the sealing bar such that it is also spaced an optimized distance from the process chamber guide, wherein the arrangement is provided such that that a film is not formed on the substrate, a substrate holder (carrier) or a vacuum chamber except at prescribed portions and/or to provide for easy maintenance as taught by Futagawa et al.
Ilo fails to disclose wherein the process chamber guide comprises at least one inlet extending through the process chamber guide, the at least one inlet is configured for introducing a flushing gas between the process chamber guide and the substrate carrier when in the processing position.
Jee et al. disclose process chamber guide (e.g., Figs. 3-4, 210) which comprises at least one inlet (at 231 and 233) extending through the process chamber guide, the at least one inlet is configured for introducing a flushing gas between the process chamber guide and a substrate carrier (40) when in a processing position for the purpose of removing particles (see, e.g., paras. 27-28).
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 Futagawa et al., the process chamber guide comprises at least one inlet extending through the process chamber guide, the at least one inlet is configured for introducing a flushing gas between the process chamber guide and the substrate carrier when in the processing position in order to remove particles as taught by Jee et al.
With respect to claim 2, additionally, modified Ilo further includes, the sealing surface that appears perpendicular to the guiding direction and parallel to a surface of a substrate carrier arranged in the process chamber guide. Regarding the specific size thereof, neither Ilo nor Futagawa et al. explicitly state that the claimed feature has a width of at least 2 mm. However, the courts have ruled that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is 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 is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. 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).
With respect to claim 3, in modified Ilo, Ilo teach that the sealing surface may be a first sealing surface, and in addition to the first sealing surface at least one second sealing surface on the process chamber guide (back side of substrate carrier) that extends parallel to the guiding direction and is configured and arranged such that, for the substrate carrier arranged in the process chamber guide, in the processing position, the first and second sealing surfaces are adapted to be arranged on both sides of the substrate carrier. Although, the specifically claimed spacing is not set forth, Futagawa et al. teach optimizing of spacings between a substrate carrier and a process chamber guide, wherein the courts have ruled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); and where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is 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 is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. 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).
With respect to claim 4, in modified Ilo, Ilo may further comprise a roller bearing (11) adapted to support the substrate carrier.
With respect to claim 5, in modified Ilo, Ilo may further comprise a groove (space between portions of 61) on the process chamber guide that is adapted to hold the substrate carrier.
With respect to claim 6, the roller bearing is arranged on a bottom surface of the groove (i.e., inclusive of in proximity to as disclosed in Applicant’s disclosure).
With respect to claim 7, one of the side surfaces of the groove is formed as a sealing surface in at least some areas.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s claim amendments and accompanying arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 under have been fully considered and are persuasive, as the previous rejection fails to address the newly added subject matter from the claim amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jee et al. which addresses the newly added subject matter.
Additionally, Applicant's arguments regarding previously relied upon and still relied upon prior references have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. They are addressed below to the extent that they remain relevant.
Applicant’s arguments include the following: 1) there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the Ilo and Futagawa et al.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Examiner maintains that the motivation for combination provided above is proper, wherein the motivation for providing the modified process chamber guide is to provide a sealing surface so that a film is not formed on the substrate, a substrate holder (carrier) or a vacuum chamber except at prescribed portions and similarly the motivation for providing the claimed spacing spaced an optimized distance from the process chamber guide is also for the purpose of providing an arrangement such that that a film is not formed on the substrate, a substrate holder (carrier) or a vacuum chamber except at prescribed portions and/or to provide for easy maintenance.
Applicant’s arguments mention “when faced with the problem of sealing a process chamber”. However, notably, Applicant’s invention is not drawn to a process chamber or a method of sealing a process chamber, per se, rather it is drawn to what they have chosen claim as “an arrangement”, wherein the arrangement is essentially a substrate carrier and a process chamber guide, i.e. a structure that functions to guide a carrier. Applicant’s arguments appear to be based on their overall disclosure which, presumably is, at least, inclusive of “the arrangement”, a process chamber and method (for example a sealing method, including use of “the arrangement” within a process chamber. However, they are misplaced because their claimed invention is just the arrangement, wherein in response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, the courts have ruled that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner also notes that Applicant’s arguments appear to essentially imply that because the prior art of record does not literally state that they are dedicated to solving the same problem as Applicant using the same language as Applicant, the art is not relevant. Examiner disagrees and notes that that is not the standard for a proper obviousness rejection in US practice. For example, the courts have ruled the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Also, notably, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In the instant case, all of the relied upon prior art are in the substrate carrier art AND at least Futagawa et al. and Jee et al. are particularly concerned with the particular problem with which the inventor is concerned – which is maintaining a particular environment with respect to the substrate carrier, similar to Applicant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 20060118008; KR 20140118552 and 2013/0032084 disclose similar “arrangements” comprising a substrate carrier and a process chamber guide.
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