DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on April 1, 2026. Claims 1, 8-10, and 21 are amended; claims 19 and 20 are canceled; claim 22 is new.
The applicant contends:
(1) The cited prior art fails to disclose the claim 1 feature of activating the lamp heaters “when the through holes are closed by the gate valves to remove moisture,” whereby the vacuum pump is then “configured to pump moisture out of the chamber.” Although the Office has previously asserted that a similar result with “ensue inherently,” the examiner has not provided supporting evidence. Myo’s heaters, for example, are directed to pre- and post-heating of substrate, not removing moisture from the inner wall of the chamber and the transfer robot, as claimed. Woo, the secondary reference, uses the heaters to maintain the transfer chamber at a high temperature (pp. 7-8).
(2) Claim 21 requires at least a 90-degree spread angle of light that “directly heat[s] the entire inner wall of the chamber.” Kobayashi, on the other hand, merely stipulates that each lamp may be “shaped into an arc of 90 degrees” (p. 8).
In response,
(1) The examiner observes that some aspects of the contested limitations are recitations of intended use, whereby the prior art must merely demonstrate the structural capacity to replicate the claimed function in order to satisfy the threshold for rejection – it has been held that a recitation drawn to the intended manner of employing a claimed apparatus does not differentiate said apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)). As an example, the penultimate paragraph of claim 1 reads: “wherein the lamp heaters are configured to heat…when the through holes are closed by the gate valves.” For this particular operation, the operator of the composite prior art apparatus can simply activate the lamp heaters while maintaining the gate valves in a closed position.
Other aspects of the contested limitations will ensue inherently from a specific mode of using the composite prior art apparatus. Referring again to the intended operation of activating the lamp heaters while maintaining the gate valves in a closed state, the effect is to increase the temperature of the chamber’s atmosphere. In turn, the spacing between the air molecules increases, expanding the volume of air. Of course, volume expansion necessarily decreases the air’s relative humidity, causing the atmosphere to extract moisture from proximate surfaces until the attainment of equilibrium. In the context of the prior art’s transfer chamber, the aforesaid mode of use will necessarily draw moisture from any feature contained therein, including the interior walls and transfer robot. Subsequent this step, the extracted moisture is now contained within the atmosphere, which the vacuum pump will exhaust from the chamber merely by virtue of its operation. It is in this way that the composite prior art apparatus satisfies each aspect of the new material presented by claim 1.
(2) Figure 5 of Woo depicts seven spaces for accommodating lamps, whereby Figure 2 of Kobayashi suggests a spread angle of at least 90 degrees for a given lamp heater. Mathematically, such an arrangement would, in fact, substantially illuminate each region of the transfer chamber’s interior wall.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myo et al., US 2008/0019806, in view of Woo, US 2019/0287834, and Kobayashi et al., US 2017/0229290.
Claims 1, 3: Myo discloses a substrate transfer system, comprising:
A chamber (1) in which a plurality of through holes (10) are formed on a side surface ([0028], Fig. 1A);
A substrate transfer robot (5) provided in the chamber [0023];
A plurality of lamp heaters disposed within the side surfaces (3) of the chamber [0027];
A vacuum pump connected to the chamber to maintain a vacuum condition [0024].
Myo does not appear to fashion the chamber’s side surfaces concavely. Woo, however, describes a transfer chamber (10) in which a plurality of concave parts (170) is formed between adjacent pairs of through holes (121) ([0082]; Fig. 6). In turn, heaters are situated inside these concave parts to regulate the temperature within the chamber [0097]. By forming at least the corners of the transfer chamber as curved portions, exhaustion of fumes proceeds more effectively [0026]. Because Myo shares the desideratum of preventing fume-induced equipment damage, it would have been obvious to configure the chamber’s side surfaces concavely in accordance with the paradigm of Woo.
Although, it is clear that a heater is embedded within each wall portion, Woo does not explicitly describe the relative orientation of the heaters to the concave parts. In supplementation, Kobayashi situates a lamp heater (62) within a concave portion (63) formed on an inner wall of a chamber (Figs. 1-2). The concave surface, it should be noted, is reflective to direct and focus the light on a target feature [0032]. In view of this guidance, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to situate the composite prior art’s lamp heater within the curvature of the concave part to augment the radiation’s intensity, thereby accelerating the heating process.
Lastly, regarding the new material, the operator can close Myo’s gate valves during the activation of the lamp heaters – it has been held that a recitation drawn to the intended manner of employing a claimed apparatus does not differentiate said apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)). Further, activating the lamp heaters increases the temperature of the chamber’s atmosphere. In turn, the spacing between the air molecules rises, expanding the volume of air. Volume expansion necessarily decreases the air’s relative humidity, causing the atmosphere to extract moisture from proximate surfaces until the attainment of equilibrium. In the context of the prior art’s transfer chamber, the aforesaid mode of use will necessarily draw moisture from any feature contained therein, including the interior walls and transfer robot. Subsequent this step, the extracted moisture is now contained within the atmosphere, which the vacuum pump will exhaust from the chamber merely by virtue of its operation. It is in this way that the composite prior art apparatus satisfies each aspect of the new material presented by claim 1.
Claim 6: Woo contemplates affixing heaters to each of the chamber’s front wall (110), rear wall (120), left wall (130), right wall (140), and corner walls (150) [0097]. As shown by Figure 6, each of these walls is disposed at “substantially equal” intervals in plan view.
Claim 21: The precise number of lamp heaters is a matter that can be resolved via routine experimentation and is a result-effective variable, and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)). Further, if situated as suggested by Kobayashi, the spread angle of the lamps disposed within the composite prior art apparatus would be 90 degrees [0032].
Claim 22: This limitation is directed to the intended use of the apparatus, whereby the operator can control the prior art system to activate the lamp heaters before the ingress of a substrate – it has been held that claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959)).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myo in view of Woo and Kobayashi, and in further view of Aburatani et al., US 2013/0012035.
Claim 4: Woo is silent regarding the feature of a flange mediating the connection between the lamp and chamber. In supplementation, Aburatani discloses a processing chamber comprising an internal lamp (81) (Fig. 7). In order to secure the lamp within the chamber, a flange (83) affixes via an adhesive (81s) to the lamp; in turn, the flange is screwed (98, 99) to the chamber ([0054, 0065-66]; Figs. 9-10). It would have been obvious to adopt this mechanism of affixment within the chamber of the composite prior art apparatus to achieve the predictable result of securing the lamp to the sidewall.
Claim 5: Necessarily, given that the lamp of the prior art is light emitting, there is a light emitting portion disposed in the concave part. Although clearly implied, the references cited thus far are silent regarding the matter of a power supply cord for the lamp. Figure 9 of Aburatani, however, depicts a lamp heater disposed within a substrate processing system, whereby a power supply cord (82c) couples to the lamp (81) to provide the requisite electrical current [0051]. It would have been obvious to endow Woo’s lamp heater with a power supply cord to achieve the predictable result of supplying the current necessary to activate the heating element therein.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myo in view of Woo and Kobayashi, and in further view of Kasai et al., JP 2004-157989, wherein machine translation is relied upon.
Woo is silent regarding the orientation of the heater but Kasai, like Woo, suggests positioning rod-type heaters (44) in the four corners of a rectangular processing chamber (Fig. 2). As shown by the side view, Kasai’s heaters (44) extend from a lower surface of the chamber to an upper surface (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to orient Woo’s heaters in accordance with this paradigm, as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Berney et al., US 2022/0308462. Figure 1 of Berney depicts a chamber comprising a through hole (104) formed on a side surface, as well as a lamp heater (158) disposed in the chamber [0057].
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