DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on October 23, 2025, has been entered.
Claims 1 and 13 are amended.
The applicant contends:
(1) The final limitation of claim 1 requires the controller to “control an internal set pressure of the vacuum transfer chamber in the idle state to be increased whenever a predetermined period of time elapses.” The cited prior art, in contrast, does not disclose this act of control. Tanaka, for instance, maintains a positive pressure within the transfer chamber but only during an operation state (pp. 12-13).
(2) The prior art does not disclose the claim 1 limitation requiring the “oxygen concentration in the vacuum transfer chamber in the idle state…to be equal to or lower than 0.1 ppm.” The cited prior art does not disclose this feature, fundamentally, because the references do not disclose the claimed “idle state” (pp. 13-14).
In response,
(1) As an initial matter, the examiner wishes to review the claimed stipulations of an “idle state” and an “operation state,” with the former now denoting the interval in which a cassette housing processed workpieces is exchanged for a cassette housing unprocessed workpieces, and the latter denoting the interval when a cassette is installed at the carrier station (10). Ishibashi, the primary reference, is silent regarding the pressure operations governing the vacuum transfer chamber during an interval like the claimed “idle state,” but the examiner believes the deliverances of this reference already provide sufficient warrant to reproduce the claimed act of supplying gas “throughout the idle state…such that the oxygen concentration…is adjusted to be equal to or lower than 0.1 ppm.”
Principally, Ishibashi observes that “[a]tmospheric air is prone to leak into the vacuum transfer chamber TM through sealing surfaces,” whereby the leakage amount is determined by measuring oxygen concentration therein [0043, 0045]. As is known within the art, increasing oxygen concentrations render thin films formed on the workpiece vulnerable to oxidation. Ishibashi, in turn, identifies the solution of supplying nitrogen gas to reduce oxygen concentration, whereby “when the nitrogen gas is stopped, the dilution effect of the nitrogen gas disappears. Therefore…the oxygen concentration…is increased” [0058].
The examiner understands these precepts, collectively, to motivate one of ordinary skill to supply nitrogen to the vacuum transfer chamber to maintain the oxygen concentration therein below a predetermined threshold, thereby inhibiting oxidation of the workpiece. Although these precepts are not explicitly directed to something like the claimed “idle state,” it stands to reason that a skilled artisan would maintain the oxygen concentration below the specified threshold throughout the apparatus’ entire duration of use. As demonstrated by Figure 9 of Ishibashi, which depicts the results of a weekly leak assay, ceasing nitrogen flow for merely two minutes is adequate to raise the oxygen concentration by an entire order of magnitude, necessitating a series of pumping and flow operations simply to return the concentration to its original state [0056]. The Office suggests that one of ordinary skill would be motivated by imperatives of economy and efficiency to simply supply nitrogen continuously, thereby obviating the burdensome operations required to lower an oxygen concentration that has been senselessly permitted to exceed the predetermined threshold value.
This imperative, of course, would obtain in view of a contingency where a cassette of processed workpieces is exchanged for a cassette of unprocessed workpieces, as this act of exchange can be completed expeditiously, meaning that workpiece entry to the transfer chamber is always imminent, even during the interval of an “idle state.” It is in this way that one of ordinary skill would be motivated to supply nitrogen to Ishibashi’s transfer chamber during the contingency of cassette exchange, i.e., the “idle state.”.
Lastly, regarding final paragraph of claim 1 which requires the transfer chamber’s “internal set pressure…in the idle state to be increased whenever a predetermined period of time elapses.” The breadth of this limitation renders it unconvincing, as even the most infinitesimal fluctuation of pressure upwards would be sufficient to satisfy its terms. Given that pressure control is imperfect, such a fluctuation would ensue naturally over the course of use.
Further, the examiner observes that the “predetermined period of time” is unspecified. Thus, one can arbitrarily construe the predetermined period to be equal to or longer than the duration of the idle state; given this premise, the predetermined period would never elapse, thereby nullifying the requirement that the internal set pressure actually increase.
(2) As noted in the previous Office letter, Figure 9 of Ishibashi depicts a contingency where, in view of a leakage amount of 0.1 sccm, the technique of supplying nitrogen to the vacuum transfer chamber is capable of reducing the oxygen concentration to 0.1 ppm. Because the probability of oxidation scales with oxygen concentration, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to maintain the lowest oxygen level that is structurally feasible. Given a well-sealed transfer chamber, Figure 9 of Ishibashi proves that the threshold of 0.1 ppm is entirely viable, and it would have been obvious to maintain this threshold even during an interregnum such as an idle state to thoroughly minimize the likelihood of oxidation.
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.
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) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder – “supplier,” in this case – 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 limitations are:
The “gas supplier” of claims 1-4, 8, and 11;
Because this limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The gas supplier (34) will be interpreted as a source (34a), a supply pipe (34b), and a valve (34c) in accordance with paragraph [0038] of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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 them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claim 1 and its dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The fourth to last paragraph refers to an “idle state which is a time interval after the carrier accommodating the workpieces after the predetermined process is unloaded…” The repeat use of the preposition “after” confounds the clarity of the limitation. It seems that the second use of “after” denotes a circumstance where the workpieces in the carrier have been subjected to the predetermined process. The examiner suggests the following as an alternative: …the workpieces which have been subjected to the predetermined process is unloaded...
Similarly, the subsequent paragraph refers to “workpieces before the predetermined process,” as well as “workpieces after the predetermined process.” Regarding the latter phrase, the examiner suggests the alternative language elaborated directly above. Regarding the former phrase, the examiner prescribes: …the workpieces which have yet to be subjected to the predetermined process is loaded... To advance prosecution, the examiner will assess the contested limitations as if the recommended changes have already been codified.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishibashi et al., US 2016/0169766, in view of Tanaka, JP 09-199569, whereby Applicant’s submitted machine translation is relied upon, and Reuter et al., US 2019/0362989.
Claims 1-2: Ishibashi discloses a vacuum processing apparatus, comprising (Fig. 1):
A carrier (C) accommodating the workpieces [0050];
A processing module (PM) including a vacuum processing chamber [0024];
A vacuum transfer module (TM) connected to the processing chamber via a gate valve (G4), including:
A vacuum transfer chamber;
A transfer arm (131), i.e., the “transfer mechanism” [0028];
A gas source (222), supply pipe (221), and valve (V2), i.e., the “gas supplier,” configured to supply gas to the transfer chamber [0029];
An oxygen concentration detector (241) configured to detect an oxygen concentration in the transfer chamber ([0047]; Fig. 2);
A controller (3) configured to control the gas supply mechanism [0033].
Regarding those limitations drawn to substrate transfer, the operator can direct the apparatus to individually transfer each workpiece from the carrier to the processing chamber, execute the predetermined process, and then return the workpieces to the carrier. It has been held that claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959)).
Concerning the supply of gas during the idle state, Reuter describes a transfer chamber (108) comprising an oxygen concentration detector (130) and a gas supplier (119) (Fig. 2). Substrate conveyance through the chamber is allowed to proceed only if the oxygen concentration is below a predetermined threshold, such as 3 ppm, to ensure the suppression of oxidation. Reuter controls the supply of inert gas via the gas supplier (119) to regulate oxygen concentration [0068]. Although Reuter does not explicitly define an “idle state” commensurate with the Applicant’s definition of the interval during cassette exchange, the examiner cites Figure 9 of Ishibashi to establish that the cessation of nitrogen flow for merely two minutes is adequate to raise the oxygen concentration by an entire order of magnitude, necessitating a series of pumping and flow operations simply to return the concentration to its original state [0056]. Given that cassette exchange can proceed expeditiously, meaning that workpiece entry to the transfer chamber will always be imminent, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to supply nitrogen throughout the duration of the exchange to obviate the need to continuously re-execute the operations required to lower oxygen concentration every time the apparatus encounters something like an idle state. Thus, in view of Reuter’s guidance, it would have been obvious to supply a continuous stream to nitrogen to Ishibashi’s transfer chamber during cassette exchange to prevent the escalation of oxygen levels therein.
Although Reuter does not specify the claimed threshold of 0.1 ppm, Figure 9 of Ishibashi depicts a control sequence in which nitrogen is supplied to the transfer chamber to regulate oxygen concentration. As shown, during the 0.1 sccm and 0 sccm leakage assays, oxygen concentration falls below 0.1 ppm, thereby demonstrating the viability of this threshold [0081]. It would have been obvious to avail the 0.1 ppm standard to further minimize the probability of oxidation, as applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Separately, claim 1 has been amended to specify the heating of the workpiece to 400 degrees C. Ishibashi, on the other hand, teaches heating the workpiece to “several hundreds of degrees” Celsius [0032], i.e., at least 300 degrees. The examiner understands this admission as rendering obvious the claimed value of 400 degrees C, 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 routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, CCPA 1955).
Regarding the antepenultimate and final paragraphs of claim 1, Ishibashi is silent regarding the matter of pressure differentials, but Tanaka teaches the general precept of maintaining the transfer chamber at a higher pressure than the process chamber to prevent contaminants from flowing into the former when the gate valve therebetween is opened [0014, 0020]. Tanaka further distinguishes between an idle state, where the pressure within the transfer chamber is permitted to fall, and an operation state, coincident with an impeding act of substrate transfer, during which a positive pressure differential is generated [0039]. In view of these deliverances, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to operate the transfer chamber at positive pressure during the opening of the gate valve separating the transfer and processing chambers to prevent backflow into the former. Further, because the positive pressure differential must already be established by the time the gate valve is opened, the idle state internal set pressure must increase from low vacuum during the interval immediately preceding the opening of the gate valve. In this way, it would have been obvious to control the internal set pressure during the idle state to increase “whenever a predetermined period of time elapses,” said “predetermined period” being the duration prior to the raising of the gate valve.
Lastly, the cited prior art does not specify an idle state pressure rating within the transfer chamber, as the penultimate paragraph of claim 1 stipulates. Even so, this is a matter of intended use, whereby the prior art must simply demonstrate the structural capacity to reproduce any functional limitations in order to satisfy the threshold for rejection – a recitation concerning the manner in which a claimed apparatus is to be employed does not differentiate the apparatus from prior art satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham 2, USPQ2D 1647). As shown by Figure 1, Ishibashi provides a pressure control valve (PCV) whose express function is to “control a pressure…in the vacuum transfer chamber…to a preset value” [0030]. Coupled with the vacuum pump and its attendant valve (V1), it is the Office position that an operator could manipulate these instruments to generate a transfer chamber pressure within Applicant’s claimed range.
Claim 3: Ishibashi provides a pressure detector (23) (Fig. 2). The controller manipulates the gas supply mechanism on the basis of the pressure reading [0030].
Claim 4: Ishibashi’s gas supply mechanism comprises a pressure control valve (PCV) that is regulated by the controller [0029].
Claim 8: Ishibashi provides an oxygen concentration detector (24) [0047].
Claim 9: The valve (V2) of Ishibashi’s gas supply mechanism may be taken as the “flow rate controller” [0029].
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Adachi et al., US 6,077,321. Adachi discloses substrate processing apparatus including transfer (20) and processing chambers (40) (Fig. 1). In addition, the reference maintains the highest internal pressure within the transfer chamber to prevent the inflow of the atmospheres of the surrounding chambers (6, 44ff).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716