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 .
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 02/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 5 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ishino (US 20100117280 A1) in view of Lee (US 20070224717 A1) and Hinterschuster (US 20160053361 A1).
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 02/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 5 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ishino (US 20100117280 A1) in view of Lee (US 20070224717 A1) and Hinterschuster (US 20160053361 A1).
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: a plurality of locking devices adapted to retain the substrate in the substrate carrier in a contact-less manner in claim 1 and a plurality of locking devices adapted to hold the substrate in the substrate carrier in a form-fitting and force- free manner in claims 6, and a first movement element and wherein the springs can be moved outwards by means of the first movement elements (claims 3 and 10).
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 § 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.
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, 11-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishino (US 20100117280 A1) in view of Lee (US 20070224717 A1) and Hinterschuster (US 20160053361 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 Ishino teaches A substrate carrier (10) for accommodating and transporting a substrate (11), wherein the substrate carrier comprises a first centering device adapted to center the substrate along a first axis (18, see Annotated Figure A), wherein the first centering device comprises two inwardly preloaded springs opposite each other (plate spring 35 are a part of receivers) with respect to the first axis; a second centering device adapted to center the substrate along a second axis (See Annotated Figure A), wherein the second centering device comprises two pairs of inwardly preloaded springs, with the springs of each pair being opposite each other with respect to the second axis (See Annotated Figure A in combination with figure 8 of Ishino, showing a close up of 18 and the associated spring mechanism) and
PNG
media_image1.png
748
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A (Fig 1 of Ishino)
But does not disclose wherein the second axis is perpendicular to the first axis, a plurality of locking devices (interpreted under 112(f) to be a piece that prevents the substrate from tipping or otherwise moving in an undesirable manner), adapted to retain the substrate in the substrate carrier in a contact-less manner wherein a portion of each of the locking devices is positionable over the substrate when the substrate is disposed in the substrate carrier for retention of the substrate.
Ishino further shows a first and second axis parallel and has a similar centering device on one perpendicular side (see 18 on the bottom in Fig. 1 of Ishino).
Lee discloses a similar substrate holder that utilizes two centering devices (See figure 1, where north south pair of clamps 10 form a primary centering device, and east and west pair of clamps 10 form a secondary centering device), wherein the second axis (east and west) is perpendicular to the first axis (North south) (see figure 1 of Lee). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the holding device of Ishino to have a north south centering device as doing so would improve the carrier device by keeping the substrate centered and in place in two different dimensions instead of one, improving the accuracy and efficiency of any processing done to the substrate.
Finally, Hinterschuster discloses a similar substrate carrier device wherein the carrier (100) comprises a plurality of locking devices (Clamps 120, interpreted under 112(f) to be a piece that prevents the substrate from tipping or otherwise moving in an undesirable manner,), adapted to retain the substrate in the substrate carrier in a contact-less manner (See Fig. 1c) wherein a portion of each of the locking devices is positionable over the substrate when the substrate is disposed in the substrate carrier for retention of the substrate (See Figure 1c and Para [0027] of Hinterschuster “FIG. 1a shows a side view of a carrier 100 holding a substrate 110. The carrier includes a frame having four parts, a bottom part 140, a first side part 150, a top part 160, and a second side part 170. The carrier 100 vertically carries the substrate 110 and includes clamps 120 at the frame parts 150, 160, and 170. The clamps prevent the vertically arranged substrate from falling out of the carrier. At the bottom frame part 140 of the carrier 100, substrate bottom support means 130 are provided, on which the bottom side of the substrate 110 rests.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the carrier device of Ishino as modified to have a plurality of locking devices as doing so would prevent the substrate from tipping or falling out as advantageously suggested in Hinterschuster, See Para [0027] “The clamps prevent the vertically arranged substrate from falling out of the carrier.”
Regarding Claim 2, Ishino teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach wherein each of the springs comprises a contact area which is provided to come into contact with the substrate, wherein the contact area has a radius of curvature of at least 5 mm.
But does suggest wherein each of the springs comprises a contact area which is provided to come into contact with the substrate (spring 35 contacts 31 which is connected to the substrate and a part of 18a See Para [0070] “As shown in FIG. 8, the moveable substrate receiver 18a includes the main body 30 and a plate spring 35 having a substantially protruding shape which abuts with the indentation 32 on the lower end of the main body 30. The plate spring 35 is mounted on the carrier frame 15 to bias the main body 30 upwardly. When the glass substrate 11 is not in abutment with (mounted on) the moveable substrate receiver 18a, the main body 30 is biased by the plate spring 35 to an uppermost position.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the size and profile of the contact area in order to effectively distribute the load of the substrate and changing the size of the contact area would be a simple change in size and shape, See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B.
Regarding Claim 4, Ishino teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition teaches further comprising a substrate (11) that is accommodated in the substrate carrier (10), wherein each of the springs comprises a contact area provided to come into contact with the substrate (35 connected to 18a which contacts the substrate), wherein, in the contact area in the direction of the substrate thickness, each of the springs has an extension that is greater than the thickness of the substrate (See Para [0066] “The thickness of the main body 30 is thicker than the thickness of the glass substrate 11 and the thickness of the indentation 32 is thicker than the thickness of the glass substrate 11.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Ishino teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition teaches wherein the plurality of locking devices are further adapted to hold the substrate in the substrate carrier in a form-fitting and force- free manner (See Fig. 1c of Hinterschuster, showing the clamps 120 holding the substrate in the carrier ins a form fitting/ force free manner by not contacting the substrate unless it was in danger of tipping or falling out).
Regarding Claim 9, Ishino teaches a changing station comprising a substrate carrier according to claim 1 (See Rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 11 Ishino teaches A method for treating a substrate comprising the following steps: (a) inserting the substrate into the substrate carrier according to claim 1 (See Rejection of claim 1 above); and (b) treating the substrate (See Para [0059] “As shown in FIG. 1, when conducting film deposition on a glass substrate 11, the glass substrate 11 is mounted on a frame termed a carrier 10 and the carrier 10 is transported using a conveyer described below to enable suitable performance of processing operations.”).
Regarding Claim 12, Ishino teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and in addition teaches wherein, prior to the insertion of the substrate, the springs of the first centering device are moved outwards (see Para [0079] “Since the plate spring 35 abuts downwardly onto the main body 30 of the moveable substrate receiver 18a, the main body 30 displaces downwardly as the plate spring 35 deforms. In other words, the glass substrate 11 displaces downwardly while any impacts resulting from the load of the glass substrate 11 are absorbed.”), and suggests but does not explicitly teach and wherein, prior to the insertion of the substrate, the locking devices are opened (See Para [0062] “As shown in FIG. 2, the carrier 10 can be displaced by a conveyer 50 for example inside the deposition device. The conveyer 50 includes a frame 22 supported and fixed to the floor FL, and a lower support mechanism 23 and upper support mechanism 24 provided in the frame 22. In other words, the carrier 10 undergoes horizontal displacement along the conveying path (a groove on the outer peripheral side of the roller 25) by engaging the slider 17 provided on the lower side of the carrier 10 with a roller 25 of the lower support mechanism 23 and using a motor 2 to rotate the roller 25. Furthermore, the carrier 10 can be transferred while being maintained in a vertical orientation due to the repulsion between the magnet 16 provided on an upper side of the carrier 10 and the pair of magnets 27a, 27b forming the upper support mechanism 24.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the locking device of Ishino as modified to open and close as doing so would allow for the clamps to more easily receive the object to be clamped and allow for reuse of the carrier.
Regarding Claim 13, Ishino as modified teaches all the limitations 11 and in addition teaches wherein, after the insertion of the substrate, the springs of the first centering device are moved inwards, and suggests but does not explicitly teach and wherein, after the insertion of the substrate, the locking devices are closed (See Para [0062] “As shown in FIG. 2, the carrier 10 can be displaced by a conveyer 50 for example inside the deposition device. The conveyer 50 includes a frame 22 supported and fixed to the floor FL, and a lower support mechanism 23 and upper support mechanism 24 provided in the frame 22. In other words, the carrier 10 undergoes horizontal displacement along the conveying path (a groove on the outer peripheral side of the roller 25) by engaging the slider 17 provided on the lower side of the carrier 10 with a roller 25 of the lower support mechanism 23 and using a motor 2 to rotate the roller 25. Furthermore, the carrier 10 can be transferred while being maintained in a vertical orientation due to the repulsion between the magnet 16 provided on an upper side of the carrier 10 and the pair of magnets 27a, 27b forming the upper support mechanism 24.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to close the locking device after the inserting of the substrate in order to allow for the substrate to be easily withdrawn without interference/obstruction of the locking device.
Regarding Claim 14, Ishino as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 11, and in addition teaches further comprising the step: (c) removing the substrate from the substrate carrier (See Para [0028] “When the projection abutting with the substrate undergoes temporal wear, the supporting member main body may be removed, rotated and re-mounted so that another projection abuts with the substrate.”).
Regarding Claim 15, Ishino as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 14 and in addition teaches wherein, prior to the removal of the substrate, the springs of the first centering device are moved outwards (see Para [0079] “Since the plate spring 35 abuts downwardly onto the main body 30 of the moveable substrate receiver 18a, the main body 30 displaces downwardly as the plate spring 35 deforms. In other words, the glass substrate 11 displaces downwardly while any impacts resulting from the load of the glass substrate 11 are absorbed.”), but does not explicitly teach and wherein the locking devices are opened prior to the removal of the substrate.
However, Hinterschuster does teach clamps 120 that are included with frame portions of the carrier (See Para [0027] “The carrier 100 vertically carries the substrate 110 and includes clamps 120 at the frame parts 150, 160, and 170.”) and further discloses that the clamps can be known clamping designs (See Para [0078] “This effect can further be emphasized by using substantially known clamp designs for the fixing means and increasing the clamp force.”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the locking device of Ishino as modified to open and close as doing so would allow for the clamps to more easily receive the object to be clamped and allow for reuse of the carrier.
Regarding Claim 17, Ishino as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and in addition teaches wherein, between steps (a) and (b), the substrate is held in the substrate carrier in a form-fitting and force-free manner using of a plurality of locking devices (See Figure 1c and Para [0027] of Hinterschuster “FIG. 1a shows a side view of a carrier 100 holding a substrate 110. The carrier includes a frame having four parts, a bottom part 140, a first side part 150, a top part 160, and a second side part 170. The carrier 100 vertically carries the substrate 110 and includes clamps 120 at the frame parts 150, 160, and 170. The clamps prevent the vertically arranged substrate from falling out of the carrier. At the bottom frame part 140 of the carrier 100, substrate bottom support means 130 are provided, on which the bottom side of the substrate 110 rests.”).
Regarding Claim 18, Ishino as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and in addition teaches wherein the substrate is oriented substantially vertically in step (b) (See Figure 1, Substrate is oriented vertically in the carrier), wherein the first centering device is located in a lower half of the substrate (See 18 in figure 1).
Regarding Claim 19, Ishino as modified teaches all the limitations of claim of claim 14 but does not explicitly teach wherein no frictional forces act between the substrate and the substrate carrier during steps (a) and/or (c).
However, Ishino does teach that frictional forces between the substrate and carrier are undesirable (See Para [0007] “Furthermore, wear may result on the substrate receiver side due to frictional contact between the glass substrate and the substrate receiver.”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the substrate carrier of eliminate the friction force between the carrier and substrate as determining an appropriate coefficient of friction between the two objects would be well within routine optimization through routine experimentation from one of ordinary skill in the art and as doing so would reduce the long term wear of the supporting members of the main body as indicated in Para [0008] of Ishino.
Regarding Claim 20, Ishino as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 19 and in addition teaches wherein in step (a) the substrate is inserted into the substrate carrier in a manner inclined with respect to a plane defined by the substrate carrier such that first a lower edge of the substrate rests on a lower side of the substrate carrier (See Para [0077] “As shown in FIG. 9B, when the glass substrate 11 is mounted on the carrier frame 15 of the carrier 10, firstly one projection 31 (projection 31a) of the main body 30 makes contact with the glass substrate 11 at a contact point 40a.”) and subsequently the substrate is tilted into a plane of the substrate carrier (See Para [0082] “The peripheral edge section of the glass substrate 11 is pressed onto the mask 20 of the carrier frame 15 by a clamp 19 mounted on a peripheral edge of the opening 21 and the glass substrate 11 is fixed to and supported by the carrier 10.”).
Claim(s) 3, 5, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishino (US 20100117280 A1) in view of Lee (US 20070224717 A1) and Hinterschuster (US 20160053361 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further in view of Weaver (US 20140077431 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Ishino as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach wherein each of the springs comprises an accommodating area for a first movement element and wherein the springs can be moved outwards using of the first movement elements (interpreted as a pin that extends into an opening on a spring to in order to bias or load it or an equivalent thereof).
However, Weaver teaches a similar holding mechanism that utilizes springs (See Para [0027] “These movable projections 190 are each naturally biased through the use of a biasing member, such as a spring, elastic band, or the like.”) as a part of a projection to keep the workpiece in place, these projections further include a first movement element (Figure 9, actuator extending through 194) and wherein the springs can be moved outwards by means of the first movement elements (See Para [0037] “This opening 194 is aligned to an aperture under the movable projection 190, through which an actuator may extend. When the actuator extends into this opening 194, it moves the movable projection 190 and holds it in a help position, different than its naturally biased position.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the springs of Ishino to include a first movement element in order to bias the springs as desired by a user of the carrier to allow for substrates of different sizes or shapes to be used by the device.
Regarding Claim 5, Ishino teaches all the limitations of claim 4 and in addition teaches wherein the substrate is oriented substantially vertically in the substrate carrier and wherein the substrate rests on a lower edge of the substrate carrier extending parallel to the first axis (See Para [0060] “The carrier is disposed in an upright position to enable mounting of the glass base substrate 11. The carrier 10 includes a frame-shaped carrier frame 15 of aluminum or the like, a magnet 16 provided along an upper side of the carrier frame 15, and a slider 17 formed from round bars provided along a lower side of the carrier frame 15. In addition, a plurality of substrate receivers 18 for receiving a load from the glass substrate 11 and maintaining the horizontal level of the glass substrate 11 and a plurality of clamps 19 provided on a peripheral edge of an opening 21 of the carrier frame 15 for maintaining the glass substrate 11 on the carrier 10 are provided. A”).
And suggests but does not explicitly disclose wherein a static friction force exists between the lower edge of the substrate and the substrate carrier and wherein a decentration of the substrate along the first axis by 2 mm generates a resultant force of the two springs onto the substrate that is greater than the static friction force (See Para [0060] “. A substrate receiver 18 for absorbing impacts, which is placed in abutment when the glass substrate 11 deviates to the right or left during conveying operations, is provided on both horizontal ends of the opening 21 of the carrier frame 15.”).
However, Weaver teaches a similar holding mechanism that utilizes springs (See Para [0027] “These movable projections 190 are each naturally biased through the use of a biasing member, such as a spring, elastic band, or the like.”) as a part of a projection to keep the workpiece in place, these projections further include a first movement element (Figure 9, actuator extending through 194).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the plate springs of Ishino as modified to generate a resultant force that is greater than the static friction as a result of decentralization of the substrate as doing so would return the substrate to its original position in order to keep it in still and in place during the processing of the substrate, allowing for more accurate work.
Regarding specifically “wherein a decentration of the substrate along the first axis by 2mm” It has been held that when the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is a citation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently, than the prior art device the claimed device was not patentably distinct form the prior art device. Specifically, the limitation in question is being interpreted in its broadest reasonable form, requiring that when the substrate is moved 2mm the force of the spring pushes the substrate back in place, overcoming the force of the static friction.
Ishino as modified in view of weaver teaches when the substrate is moved the force of the spring pushes the substrate back into place overcoming the force of the static friction. One of ordinary skill in the art would utilize springs with an appropriate spring coeffiecent to overcome the static friction when subjected to a decentration of 2mm.
Regarding Claim 8, Ishino teaches all the limitations of claim 5 and suggests but does not explicitly teach wherein the coefficient of static friction is less than 0.2 (See Para [0007] and [0008] “Furthermore, wear may result on the substrate receiver side due to frictional contact between the glass substrate and the substrate receiver.” And “The present invention is proposed in view of the above problems and has the object of providing a supporting member and carrier in order to enable prevention of cracking in a substrate and long-term durability for the supporting member main body.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the substrate carrier of Ishino to reduce to coefficient of friction to .2 or less between the substrate and the carrier as determining an appropriate coefficient of friction between the two objects would be well within routine optimization through routine experimentation from one of ordinary skill in the art and as doing so would reduce the long term wear of the supporting members of the main body as indicated in Para [0008] of Ishino.
Regarding Claim 10, Ishino teaches all the limitations of claim 9 but does not explicitly teach wherein each of the springs comprises an accommodating area for a first movement element and wherein the changing station comprises two or more first movement elements adapted to move the springs outwards.
However, Weaver teaches a similar holding mechanism that utilizes springs (See Para [0027] “These movable projections 190 are each naturally biased through the use of a biasing member, such as a spring, elastic band, or the like.”) as a part of a projection to keep the workpiece in place, these projections further include a first movement element (Figure 9, actuator extending through 194) and wherein the springs can be moved outwards by means of the first movement elements (See Para [0037] “This opening 194 is aligned to an aperture under the movable projection 190, through which an actuator may extend. When the actuator extends into this opening 194, it moves the movable projection 190 and holds it in a help position, different than its naturally biased position.”) and further teaches at least two first movement elements (projections 190).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the spring elements of Ishino to include an accommodating area for a movement element and including movement elements to allow for a user of the device to adjust the carrier to fit different sized substrates as doing so would enhance the versatility of the tool.
Claim(s) 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishino (US 20100117280 A1) in view of Lee (US 20070224717 A1) and Hinterschuster (US 20160053361 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Lau (US 20180272484 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Ishino as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 11 but does not explicitly wherein the substrate carrier and/or the substrate are heated from a first temperature to a second temperature between steps (a) and (b), wherein the first temperature is in a range below 100°C and wherein the second temperature is in a range above 120°C.
Ishino does suggest heating treatments being performed on the substrate in a carrier (See Para [0002] “In a manufacturing step for a liquid crystal display for example, a vacuum process such as a heating process or deposition process is performed for a large glass substrate.”).
And Lau teaches a similar substrate carrier apparatus that is heated during processing (See Para [0068] “The deposition material source 630 provides deposition material 635 to be deposited on the substrate. Typically, during a deposition process, the processing temperature in the chamber is about 500° C.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the processing of Ishino to include heating from under 100°C (such as room temperature) to above 120°C during a process such as during a deposition process as indicated in Lau in order to successfully preform a deposition process.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishino (US 20100117280 A1) in view of Lee (US 20070224717 A1) and Hinterschuster (US 20160053361 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Sugarman (US 6520315 B1).
Regarding Claim 21, Ishino as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose further comprising an actuator for opening and closing the locking devices.
However, Sugarman discloses a similar substrate carrying device comprising a locking device (13) adapted to retain a substrate (S, See Figs. 2 and 3a), comprising an actuator (37) for opening and closing the locking device (See Figs. 3a and 3b, See Col 3 Line 18-26 “A moveable pin 37 (e.g., pneumatically, magnetically or motor driven) may selectively push the base portion 25 of the moveable gripper 19 away from the mounting base 21, thus overcoming the magnets' 23a-b repulsion and placing the inventive gripper assembly 13.sup.1 in the open position as described below. The pin 37 may slide through an opening 38 in the backside of the flywheel 15 in order to contact the base portion 25 of the moveable gripper 19.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the locking device of Ishino as modified to include an actuator for opening and closing the locking device as doing so would allow for an operator to easily insert and remove the substrate without having to maneuver the substrate around said locking device to place it in the carrier.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler James McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-7270. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5PM (E.S.T), Flex First Friday.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/T.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723