DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on May 20, 2026. Claims 1-2, 4-16, 18, and 20-21 are amended; claim 22 is new. The changes are sufficient to overcome the prior art rejections, but 112 rejections remain.
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 generic placeholders – “device” and “mechanism,” in this case – that are 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 “substrate holding mechanism” of claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 12-13, and 15;
The “substrate transfer device” of claim 14.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The substrate holding mechanism (103) will be interpreted as a holder in accordance with paragraph [0032] of Applicant’s specification;
The substrate transfer device (36) will be interpreted as a robot with an arm (42) in accordance with paragraph [0022].
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 paragraph of claim 1 clarifies that the cooling plates face “respective surfaces of the first and second substrates,” while the final paragraph stipulates that these same cooling plates are “configured to cool the front or rear surface [sic] the respective first and second substrates.” Firstly, a preposition, like of, is missing from the last sentence. Secondly, it is unclear how the claimed “respective surfaces” of the fourth paragraph relate to the front and rear surfaces of the final paragraph. For purposes of consistency, the examiner suggests amending the fourth paragraph to clearly state that the first and second cooling plates face the front and rear surfaces of the first and second substrates, respectively. Thirdly, the final paragraph uses the conjunction “or” – “configured to cool the front or rear surface” – rather than the conjunction and. Because both the front surface of the first substrate and the rear surface of the second surface are cooled by the first and second cooling plates, respectively, the examiner believes the appropriate conjunction is and.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 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
Prosecution Insights