DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 2/17/2026.
The Examiner notes claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined; claim(s) 5-18 have been withdrawn due the Response to Election / Restriction filed on 7/23/2024; claim(s) 1 & 3 is/are currently amended; and all other claims are original or previously presented.
Please see the Response to Amendments and Response to Arguments sections below for more details.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-18 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species B, Fig 3a-3b corresponding to claims 5-18, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/23/2024.
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:
Claim 1, 19, & 20: "drive unit." Wherein the instant application the drive unit is interpreted per the applicant's disclosure in pg5:¶2-¶3 to be an electric motor, in particular a stepper motor, or a pneumatic drive cylinder.
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.
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 1-4 is/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 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1
The claim states "wherein the support pin is fixed to the coupling." The Applicant’s disclosure provides insufficient information for the support pin being fixed to the couple. There is no mention of any language that state the pin is fixed to the coupling. The pin can be secured, clamped, or held magnetically to the coupling but not fixed to the coupling. The Applicant cites ¶23 of the publication of their application, US 20220076987 A1, as supporting this amendment. However there is no mention of the support pin being fixed to the coupling in the paragraph or the surrounding ones.
Therefore, it appears that the claim contains subject matter for which the inventor did not have possession at the time the application was filed.
The dependent claims are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
And/or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 3 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHO et al. (US 20190043744), hereinafter Cho.
Regarding claim 20. (See Status of Claims for each claims’ statuses) Cho discloses an apparatus comprising:
a pin lifting device [Fig 1A-1B & 4C, 104, support pins (110A-110D in Fig 1A-1B or 205 in Fig 4C), 125, 137-138, 200, 300, & 500 form a pin lifting device] configured to move and position a substrate [101] to be processed, in a process atmosphere region (P) [111] provided by a vacuum process chamber [Fig 1A-1B; 102],
the pin lifting device comprising:
a coupling [Fig 1A-1B; & Fig 4C; 125 has the lift pins coupled to and resting on it and is in the same manner as Figures 2a-2b and pg11:¶6 of the Applicant’s disclosure as the support pins in Figures 2a-2b are not fixed to the coupler but accommodated in the couple versus in Figures 3a-3b and pg16:¶5 where the support pin is locked in the coupling 59] designed to receive a support pin [Fig 1A-1B; ¶25; 125 receives and supports the support pins] adapted to contact and support the substrate [Fig 1A-1B], and
a drive unit [Fig 1A-1B; 138] which is designed and interacts with the coupling in such a way that the coupling is linearly adjustable along an adjustment axis (A) [Fig 1A-1B; ¶25] from
a lowered normal position, in particular for providing the support pin in a condition substantially free of action with respect to its intended effect, into an extended support position, in particular for providing the intended effect of receiving and/or providing the substrate by the support pin, and back again [Fig 1A-1B & 5; ¶25; the drive unit moves 137 & 104 which in turn move the support pins and therefore the substrate along an adjustment axis between a lowered position of the support pins where the substrate rests on 104 and is not supported by the support pins (Fig 1A) and
an extended support position, in particular for providing the intended effect of receiving and/or providing the substrate by the support pin, and back again, [Fig 1A-1B; in particular Fig 1B; ¶32; an elevated position of support pins where the substrate is supported on the support pins],
wherein the pin lifting device has at least one sensor unit [Abstract; 200, 300, & 500 are different monitoring devices (i.e. sensor units) for the pin lifting device], which is designed and arranged in such a way that, by means of the sensor unit, a force-dependent and/or an acceleration-dependent condition information can be generated with reference to at least a part of the pin lifting device [¶28, ¶39, & ¶50; the pin lifting device can have one or more of the different sensors disclosed (¶23), ¶39 discloses a sensor (305) that is an acceleration sensor that monitors the static and dynamic forces of acceleration, & ¶50 discloses toggle switches (505) that are activated by the force of the support pins holding the substrate and therefore provide force dependent condition information to at least a part of the pin lifting device].
wherein the sensor unit is arranged on: the drive unit, a coupling element which provides the cooperation of the drive unit with the coupling, or a housing of the pin lifting device [Fig 4C; 505 are arranged on 102 which houses the pin lifting device].
Regarding claim 3. Cho discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sensor unit comprises at least one of the following force sensors for generating the force-dependent condition information: a pressure sensor [¶50; 505 is a push-down switch which operates from the pressure pushing down the switch], a deformation-sensitive element, in particular a strain gauge, a piezo force transducer with a piezo ceramic element, an electrodynamic force transducer, a resistive force transducer, a vibration force transducer and/or a spring body force transducer.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McMillin et al. (US 20130059447), hereinafter McMillin.
Regarding claim 19. McMillin discloses an apparatus [Fig 2A] comprising:
a pin lifting device [Fig 2A; every component except 206 is part of the pin lifting device], configured to move and position a substrate [206] to be processed, in a process atmosphere region (P) provided by a vacuum process chamber [Abstract; ¶49], the pin lifting device comprising:
a coupling [240] designed to receive a support pin [228 & 230] adapted to contact and support the substrate [Fig 2A; the support pins contact and support the substrate], and
a drive unit [Fig 2A; 244, 246, & 248 form the drive unit] which is designed and interacts with the coupling in such a way that the coupling is linearly adjustable along an adjustment axis (A) [Fig 2A-2B; the drive unit interacts with 240 and moves it linearly] from:
a lowered normal position [Fig 2A], in particular for providing the support pin in a condition substantially free of action with respect to its intended effect [Fig 2A; the pins can be lowered to not engage or support W in the lowered normal position], into
an extended support position [Fig 2B], in particular for providing the intended effect of receiving and/or providing the substrate by the support pin, and back again [Fig 2A-2B; the pins are in the extended position receive and support W and can lower back down to the lowered normal position],
wherein the pin lifting device has at least one sensor unit, which is designed and arranged in such a way that, by means of the sensor unit, a force-dependent and/or acceleration-dependent condition information can be generated with reference to the coupling or the drive unit [Fig 2A-2B; ¶49-¶50, 242 & 250 are a detecting/sensor unit that includes a strain gauge (i.e. force-dependent sensor) that is in contact with the drive unit (i.e. 244, 246, & 248) and therefore generates force-dependent condition information with reference to the drive unit].
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, 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMillian in view of Tsujimoto et al. (US 20110132873), hereinafter Tsujimoto.
Regarding claim 1. (See Status of Claims for each claims’ statuses) McMillian discloses an apparatus comprising:
a pin lifting device [Fig 2A; every component except 206 is part of the pin lifting device] configured to move and position a substrate [206] to be processed, in a process atmosphere region (P) provided by a vacuum process chamber [Abstract; ¶49],
the pin lifting device comprising:
a coupling [240] designed to receive a support pin [228 & 230] adapted to contact and support the substrate [Fig 2A; the support pins contact and support the substrate], wherein the support pin is fixed to the coupling [Fig 2A; the pins (228) are fixed to the coupling (240)], and
a drive unit [Fig 2A; 244, 246, & 248 form the drive unit] which is designed and interacts with the coupling in such a way that the coupling is linearly adjustable along an adjustment axis (A) [Fig 2A-2B; the drive unit interacts with 240 and moves it linearly] from
a lowered normal position [Fig 2A], in particular for providing the support pin in a condition substantially free of action with respect to its intended effect [Fig 2A; the pins can be lowered to not engage or support W in the lowered normal position], into
an extended support position [Fig 2B], in particular for providing the intended effect of receiving and/or providing the substrate by the support pin, and back again [Fig 2A-2B; the pins are in the extended position receive and support W and can lower back down to the lowered normal position],
wherein the pin lifting device has at least one sensor unit, which is designed and arranged in such a way that, by means of the sensor unit,… condition information can be generated with reference to the coupling or the drive unit [Fig 2A-2B; ¶49-¶50, 242 & 250 are a detecting/sensor unit that includes a strain gauge (i.e. force-dependent sensor) that is in contact with the drive unit (i.e. 244, 246, & 248) and therefore generates force-dependent condition information with reference to the drive unit].
McMillian may not explicitly disclose an acceleration-dependent condition information
However Tsujimoto teaches a pin lifting device the pin lifting device has at least one sensor unit [Fig 6; ¶80; 360], which is designed and arranged in such a way that, by means of the sensor unit, an acceleration-dependent condition information can be generated with reference to at least a part of the pin lifting device [Fig 6; ¶17, ¶80, & ¶84-¶85; 360 detects a driving vibration of the motor which is an acceleration-dependent condition information].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pin lifting device as disclosed by McMillian to have a sensor that generates acceleration-dependent condition information as taught by Tsujimoto for the purpose of having an another sensor to detect the condition of the drive unit while moving the support pins from a lowered position to an extended position; thereby providing sensor data to determine how the support pins are moving in relation to the substrate to be lifted [Tsujimoto: ¶17, ¶80, & ¶84-¶85].
Regarding claim 2. McMillin as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sensor unit comprises at least one of the following inertial sensors for generating the acceleration-dependent condition information: an acceleration sensor which detects accelerations along at least one axis aligned in a defined manner, and/or a rotation rate sensor which detects rotation speeds or rotation accelerations about at least one axis aligned in a defined manner [¶17, ¶80, & ¶84-¶85; a vibrations of a motor are measured with an accelerometer].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMillian in view of Tsujimoto further in view of Cho.
Regarding claim 4. McMillin as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor unit is arranged on the support pin .
However Cho teaches a pin lifting device with multiple sensors [¶23] where a sensor unit is arranged on the support pin [Fig 3; 305 is an accelerometer arranged on the support pin].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pin lifting device as taught by McMillian as modified to have the sensor unit is arranged on the support pin as taught by Cho for the purpose of monitoring each of the support pins so that any fault or abnormal condition of a single support pin can be detected and the pin lift ceased to prevent damage to the substate [Cho: ¶40].
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Rejection
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 9-11, filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant claims that Cho does not teach newly amended claim 1.However it is newly rejected above under 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim 20 still rejected by Cho as it has not been amended with the “fixed” language that claim 1 has.
The Applicant claims that McMillian does not disclose a coupling and that the strain gauge under the insulator of McMillian does not provide any force-dependent condition information which relates to the dive unit.However the insulator is cited as the coupling as it couples the support pins and yoke to the drive unit. The Applicant’s coupling element includes an insulating element, see Applicant’s publication (US 20220076987) ¶96-¶98. Therefore the insulator of McMillian is also a coupling that couples the support pins to the drive unit.Further the strain gauge of McMillian measures forces resistant to the lifting of the wafer while the drive unit is operating, see ¶52 of McMillian. Further the stain gauge is placed directly against the drive unit as the lead screw (244) is part of the drive unit, see Fig 2A-2B. Therefore the force-dependent condition information provided by the strain gauge is in reference to the drive unit as the information is provided while it is operating.Therefore the rejection is maintained.
The arguments of claim 3 are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
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 AARON R MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (303)297-4608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1600 MST [0900-1800 EST] 2nd Friday 0700-1500 MST [0900-1700 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, Brian Keller can be reached on (571) 272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AARON R MCCONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights