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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicants' amendment of the claims, filed on 08/29/2025, in response to the rejection of claims 1-5 and 16-26 from the final office action, mailed on 06/04/2025, by amending claims 1-5, 17, 20, 24, 26, is acknowledged and will be addressed below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6 and 11 remain withdrawn from consideration as pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the recited features related with the 112 1st rejections below must be clearly shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). See the details in the 112 rejections below. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Following objections are for the purpose of better clarification,
(1) The “a plurality of process chambers configured to process a substrate; a plurality of standby chambers configured to accommodate the substrate” of Claim 1 would have a better form, if amended to be below, for the purpose of clarification;
“a plurality of process chambers, each configured to process a substrate; a plurality of standby chambers, each configured to accommodate the substrate”.
(2) The “further comprising a plurality of unprocessed substrates” of Claims 4-5, would have a better form, if amended to be;
“the substate further comprising a plurality of unprocessed substrates”.
(3) The “a same temperature” of Claims 4-5 and 18, would have a better form, if amended to be “same temperature”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim interpretation
(1) In regards to “the plural substrates in the plural chambers” across the claim list;
One of the multiple interpretations below will be applied for the “plural substates in the plural process chambers”, such as:
-a. when plural substrates are together loaded into each of the plural process chambers, it is interpreted that the plural chambers have plural substrates.
-b. when a single substrate is loaded into each of the plural process chambers, as a total, it can be also interpreted that the plural chambers have plural substrates.
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 1-5 and 16-26 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 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.
See the details in 112 2nd paragraph below.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 and 16-26 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(1) The “between adjacent standby chambers of the plurality of transfer chambers” of Claim 1 is not clear, because of the “of the plurality of transfer chambers”.
Does it mean “between adjacent standby chambers”, OR
“between adjacent standby chambers and one of the plurality of transfer chambers”, OR
“between adjacent standby chambers and further between the plurality of transfer chambers”?
(2) The “each of the plurality of standby chambers configured to provide a predetermined quantity of heating energy or a predetermined quantity of cooling energy to the substrate accommodated in the respective standby chamber” of Claim 1 is not clear.
First, it is not clear how the “predetermined quantity” is performed. Does each of the standby chambers requires a specific structure to perform the “predetermined?
Further, the claim is constructed to be interpreted such that the chamber itself provides the heating or cooling energy, thus it is not clear how the chamber itself can perform the “provide” function.
The examiner did not find any factual support supporting the above feature. The written description fails to clearly link the corresponding structure to perform the function of the recited device, thus the metes and bounds of the amended subject matter cannot be clearly determined.
(3) The “wherein the predetermined quantity of heating energy or the predetermined quantity of cooling energy is based on a transfer path through which the substrate accommodated in the at least one of the plurality of standby chambers passes” of Claim 1 is not clear.
First, it is not clear what the “energy is based on a transfer path” means. does it mean energy degree is changed? Or either heating energy or cooling energy is determined? How? Energy itself does not have a capability to make a decision.
The examiner did not find any factual support supporting the above feature. The written description fails to clearly link the corresponding structure to perform the function of the recited device, thus the metes and bounds of the amended subject matter cannot be clearly determined.
(4) The “wherein each of the plurality of standby chambers is configured to provide a predetermined quantity of heating energy” of Claim 2, and “wherein each of the plurality of standby chambers is configured to provide a predetermined quantity of cooling energy” of Claim 3 raise the same issue as the item (2) above.
(5) The “wherein the predetermined quantity of heating energy or the predetermined quantity of cooling energy of each of the standby chambers is such that the unprocessed substrates to be processed in the plurality of process chambers are loaded into the plurality of process chambers simultaneously with a same temperature” of Claim 4 is not clear.
It is not clear what the “the predetermined quantity of heating energy or the predetermined quantity of cooling energy of each of the standby chambers is such that…” means. does it mean the “energy” performs the functional portion of “such that…”? or the “energy” is identified by “such that…” portion? The claim is constructed to be interpreted such that “the energy” is equal to be “such that…”.
Further, it is not clear how the feature “same” is determined. Does each of the standby chambers requires a specific structure to make the “same temperature”?
The examiner did not find any factual support supporting the above feature, thus the metes and bounds of the amended subject matter cannot be clearly determined.
Still furthermore, it is not clear the “simultaneously” in “are loaded into the plurality of process chambers simultaneously with a same temperature” means “simultaneously loaded” or “simultaneously same temperature”.
If it means “simultaneously loaded”, an appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
(6) The “further comprising a plurality of processed substrates unloaded from the plurality of process chambers and then loaded into one of the plurality of standby chambers and configured such that the plurality of processed substrates unloaded from the plurality of process chambers and then loaded into one of the plurality of standby chambers are subsequently unloaded from the one of the standby chambers with a same temperature” of Claim 5 is not clear.
The claim is constructed to be interpreted such that the “plurality of processed substrates” performs the functional portion of “such that…”. It is not clear how the substrate itself perform the function.
Further, it is not clear how the feature “same” is determined. Does each of the standby chambers requires a specific structure to make the “same temperature”?
The examiner did not find any factual support supporting the above feature. The written description fails to clearly link the corresponding structure to perform the function of the recited device, thus the metes and bounds of the amended subject matter cannot be clearly determined.
(7) The “wherein the plurality of substrates are heated in the standby chamber before being loaded into the plurality of process chambers” of Claim 17 is not clear.
It is not clear how the “heating before” is performed. Does each of the standby chambers requires a specific structure to perform the function? Further the chamber itself can determine the timing “before”?
The examiner did not find any factual support supporting the above feature. The written description fails to clearly link the corresponding structure to perform the function of the recited device, thus the metes and bounds of the amended subject matter cannot be clearly determined.
(8) The “wherein the plurality of substrates are transported into the plurality of processing chambers at a same temperature” of Claim 18 is not clear, because it is not clear how the feature “same” is determined. Does each of the standby chambers requires a specific structure to make the “same temperature”?
The examiner did not find any factual support supporting the above feature. The written description fails to clearly link the corresponding structure to perform the function of the recited device, thus the metes and bounds of the amended subject matter cannot be clearly determined.
(9) The “wherein each of the plurality of substrates has a different temperature depending on the transport path” of Claim 20 is not clear.
It is not clear how the “different temperature determination depending on the transport path” is performed. Does each of the standby chambers requires a specific structure to perform the function? Further the chamber itself can determine the “path”?
The examiner did not find any factual support supporting the above feature. The written description fails to clearly link the corresponding structure to perform the function of the recited device, thus the metes and bounds of the amended subject matter cannot be clearly determined.
(10) Claim 24 raised similar issue as the item (7) above.
(11) Claim 25 recites “the same temperature”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be examined inclusive of “same temperature”. Further, it is not clear how the feature “same” is determined. Does each of the standby chambers requires a specific structure to make the “same temperature”?
The examiner did not find any factual support supporting the above feature. The written description fails to clearly link the corresponding structure to perform the function of the recited device, thus the metes and bounds of the amended subject matter cannot be clearly determined.
(12) Claim 26 raises similar issue as the item (9) above.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 08/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not convincing in light of the new ground of rejection necessitated by the applicants; amendment above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10am-6pm PT.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718