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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 16 September 2026 has been entered.
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:
an upper gas supply mechanism in claim 1 which has each been interpreted as including a fan, a duct, a buffer area, a filter unit/fan and a gas supply port as described in paras. 39-40 of the specification (Note: the specification sets forth that all of these features are provided in order to provide the claimed function), equivalents thereto are also considered as readable thereon;
a lower gas supply mechanism in claim 1 which has each been interpreted as including a fan, a duct, a buffer area, a filter unit/fan and a gas supply port as described in paras. 441-42 of the specification (Note: the specification sets forth that all of these features are provided in order to provide the claimed function) , equivalents thereto are also considered as readable thereon;
first gas supply unit in claim 4 which has each been interpreted ventilation unit/fan described in para. 61 of the specification, equivalents thereto are also considered as readable thereon;
a cooling unit in claim 14 which has been interpreted a radiator as set forth in para. 49 of the specification, equivalents thereto are also considered as readable thereon;
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 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 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 1-14 and 17-20 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 dependency.
Regarding claims 1 and 4: Claim limitations “upper gas supply mechanism”, “lower gas supply mechanism” have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they recite some but not all of the features that appear to be disclosed as necessary to perform the claimed function. The boundaries of these claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In order to expedite examination, only the structures explicitly recited in the claims have been considered necessary address claimed invention.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim 7 includes features (first exhaust port and second exhaust port) first recited in claim 3, but not claim 1. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed claim 7 was meant to depend from claim 3 and has examined accordingly. Additionally, the first duct, second duct, third duct and fourth duct appear to be features that overlap with the upper gas supply mechanism and/or the lower gas supply mechanism and/or the side exhaust mechanism. However, the relationships are not explicitly claimed, nor is it clear with respect to the specific claim language or claim language interpreted under 35 USC 112f exactly how to interpret all of these related and overlapping features. Due to the compounding of claim interpretation issues, Examiner was unable to provide a workable, plausible interpretation at this time.
Claim 8 recites a fourth duct and a sixth duct that appear to be features that overlap with the upper gas supply mechanism and/or the lower gas supply mechanism and/or side exhaust mechanism. However, the relationships are not explicitly claimed, nor is it clear with respect to the specific claim language or claim language interpreted under 35 USC 112f exactly how to interpret all of these related and overlapping features. Due to the compounding of claim interpretation issues, Examiner was unable to provide a workable, plausible interpretation at this time.
Claims 11 and 12 first fan appears to correspond to the fan of the upper gas supply mechanism (at least when upper gas supply mechanism is interpreted under 35 USC 112f, see above rejections as a result of a lack of clarity related to 35 US 112f) and in order to expedite examination overlap has been considered acceptable. Similarly, first flow path is interpreted as a feature of the upper gas supply mechanism with overlap being acceptable.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the first exhaust port". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to depend from claim 3 and has examined accordingly.
With respect to claim 19, claim 1 now recites “a plurality of lower exhaust units provided at a bottom surface of the transfer chamber, and configured to exhaust gas from the lower region of the transfer chamber…wherein the plurality of lower exhaust units comprises a third exhaust port and a fourth exhaust port”, whereas claim 19 which is dependent on claim 1 now recites “a first radiator and a second radiator are provided under the third exhaust port and the fourth exhaust port”. The features of claim 19, in particular the locations thereof, are at best unclear. It appears that the claim was meant to refer to the exhaust ports 53a and 53b previously claimed and set forth in claim 3 as a first exhaust port and a second exhaust port, rather than the third and fourth exhaust ports. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed claim 19 was meant to depend from claim 3 and reference the first exhaust port and the second exhaust port, rather than the third and fourth exhaust port, and has examined accordingly. Additionally, the first radiator, the second radiator and the sixth duct appear to be features of the side exhaust unit, although this is not made clear. Due to the compounding of claim interpretation issues, Examiner was unable to provide a workable, plausible interpretation at this time.
Claim 20 references “a bottom region of the transfer chamber”. However, this feature is previously set forth in claim 19. Therefore, in order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to reference “the bottom region of the transfer chamber” and has examined accordingly.
In all instances, clarification and/or correction is requested.
Additional Claim interpretations
The claims recite various flow paths and circulation paths, that do not appear physical structures of the claimed apparatus, rather they appear to be potential gas flow patterns/regions that may be achieved using appropriate processing parameters (including processing parameters not necessarily intended or specifically disclosed) in the claimed apparatus, wherein the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
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.
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.
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) 1-2, 4-6, 9-10 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0239937 to Ahn et al.
Regarding claim 1: Ahn et al. disclose a substrate processing apparatus substantially as claimed and comprising a transfer chamber (e.g., Figs. 1-7 and 9-10, 200) where a substrate is capable of being transferred into a retainer (300); an upper gas supply mechanism (plurality of structures) configured to supply a gas into an upper region of the transfer chamber through a first gas supply port (412b); a lower gas supply mechanism (plurality of structures) provided below the upper gas supply mechanism, and configured to supply the gas into a lower region of the transfer chamber through a second gas supply port (413b); and a lower exhaust unit (232) provided at (e.g., in the vicinity of) a bottom surface of the transfer chamber, and configured to exhaust the gas from the lower region of the transfer chamber, wherein the lower gas supply mechanism further comprises: a second buffer chamber (top portion of 413) provided at a back surface of the second gas supply port; a lower duct (bottom portion of 413) provided adjacent the second buffer chamber; and a second fan (Fig. 3, 432) provided at a lower end of the lower duct and configured to inhale the gas exhaust exhausted from the lower exhaust unit and exhale the gas to be supplied to the second gas supply port through the lower duct, wherein the substrate retainer is capable of comprising: a substrate region (e.g., 310) where the substrate is capable of being supported by the substrate retainer is disposed; and a heat insulating region (e.g., 320) provided below the substrate region, and wherein a down flow is capable of being formed at the lower region of the transfer chamber by exhausting from the lower exhaust unit, the gas capable of being supplied from the second gas supply port and flowing into the heating insulating region to the lower exhaust unit.
Regarding the features of the claim drawn to intended use (e.g., particular gas flows, flow paths, circulation paths, etc.), Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Ahn et al. fails to specifically disclose the lower exhaust unit for exhausting some of the gas to the outside of the transfer chamber (see, e.g., para. 51) as a plurality of exhaust units comprising a third exhaust port and a fourth exhaust port.
Nevertheless, the courts 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), wherein providing a plurality of exhaust ports as a third exhaust port and a fourth exhaust port in Ahn et la. would perform the same function, rather than provide a new or unexpected result.
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 plurality of exhaust ports as a third exhaust port and a fourth exhaust port in Ahn et al. for exhausting some of the gas to the outside of the transfer chamber.
With respect to claim 2, in modified Ahn et al., an exact flow path of “the down flow” of gas is considered a feature related to intended use of the apparatus wherein various, non-structural processing parameters could be selected in order to achieve the same if desired. See above regarding intended use.
With respect to claim 4, in modified Ahn et al., Ahn et al. disclose the upper gas supply mechanism further comprises: a first buffer chamber (top portion of 412) disposed adjacent to the first gas supply port; an upper duct (bottom portion of 412) disposed adjacent to the first buffer chamber; and a first gas supply unit (Fig. 3, 431) configured to supply the gas to the first buffer chamber through the upper duct.
With respect to claim 5, in modified Ahn et al., Ahn et al. disclose the upper duct is disposed at (e.g. in the vicinity of) a side surface of the first buffer chamber. See, e.g., Figs. 1 and 3.
With respect to claim 6, in modified Ahn et al., Ahn et al. disclose the first gas supply unit is disposed at a lower end of the upper duct to correspond to the upper duct. See, e.g., Fig. 3.
With respect to claim 9, in modified Ahn et al. the plurality of lower exhaust units (i.e. the third exhaust unit and the fourth exhaust unit) are disposed at the bottom surface of the transfer chamber to be spaced apparat from the substrate retainer when viewed from above. See, e.g., Fig. 1.
With respect to claim 10, in modified Ahn et al., the plurality of lower exhaust units (i.e. the third exhaust unit and the fourth exhaust unit) are formed in rectangular shapes along a side surface of the transfer chamber. See, e.g., Fig. 1.
With respect to claim 17, in modified Ahn et al., Ahn et al. discloses the first exhaust port may be disposed above the upper region of the transfer chamber (i.e. above at least portions of the upper region).
With respect to claim 18, in modified Ahn et al., Ahn et al. fail to disclose the substrate retainer is interposed between the third exhaust port and the fourth exhaust port when viewed from above. However, 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) and in the instant case there the operation is not deemed to be changed by the rearrangement.
Claim(s) 3 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10 and 17-18 above in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,536,320 to Ushikawa et al.
Ahn et al. disclose the substrate processing apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Ahn et al. fail to disclose a side exhaust unit configured to exhaust the gas from the upper region of the transfer chamber, wherein the side exhaust unit comprises a first exhaust port and a second exhaust port formed separately from the first exhaust port, and wherein a side flow is divided into an upper side flow propagating obliquely upward from the upper gas supply mechanism to the first exhaust port and a lower side flow propagating obliquely downward from the upper gas supply mechanism to the second exhaust port.
Ushikawa et al. disclose a substrate processing apparatus comprising a side exhaust unit (e.g. Fig. 1, 38A including gas holes 44) configured to exhaust gas from an upper region of a transfer chamber (26), wherein the side exhaust unit comprises a first exhaust port (e.g., a plurality of gas holes 44 in top portion of 38A) and a second exhaust port (e.g., plurality of gas holes 44 in lower portion of 38A) formed separately from the first exhaust port (e.g., separate structure) for the purpose of passing a circulating gas for suppressing natural oxide formation through the transfer chamber (see, e.g., column 3, rows 54-67).
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 side exhaust unit in Ahn et al., the side unit comprising the first exhaust port and the second exhaust port formed separately from the first exhaust port in order to pass a circulating gas for suppressing natural oxide formation through the transfer chamber as taught by Ushikawa et al.
Note: as above, an exact flow path of “side flow” (or other flow path) is seen as dependent on an intended use of the claimed apparatus, wherein the relied upon prior art is considered to be capable of performing the claimed intended use using the disclosed structure(s) depending on processing parameters selected and the random nature of gas flow. So, as above, regarding the features of the claim drawn to intended use, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 11, modified Ahn et al. discloses a first fan (431) configured to inhale the gas exhausted from the side exhaust unit and exhale the gas supplied to the first gas supply port. See, e.g., Fig. 1.
With respect to claim 12, in modified Ahn et al., with respect a first flow path related to processing parameters and conditions that can be created in the apparatus. See above regarding intended use.
With respect to claim 13, in modified Ahn et al., again, the claimed circulation paths and flow paths are considered features based on an intended use of the claimed apparatus. See above regarding intended use.
With respect to claim 14, in modified Ahn et al., Ahn et al. disclose a cooling unit (441a) installed at a “flow path” extending from (i.e. connecting) the first fan to the exhaust unit. Again, the claimed circulation paths and flow paths are considered features based on an intended use of the claimed apparatus. See above regarding intended use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 and 17-20 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter as specifically challenged in the argument. The rejections have been amended to account for Applicant’s amendments.
In order to advance examination, Examiner suggests properly including the features addressed in claims 3 and 7 into claim 1, such that claim 1 at least properly includes the features of the upper gas supply mechanism, the lower gas supply mechanism and the side exhaust unit, as well as making all other necessary corrections and/or clarifications mentioned above, as well as those that might be created by any future amendment.
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. Pub. No. 2002/0023458 disclose a plurality of radiators in an exhaust duct
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716