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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 2-17 recite “the controller is configured to be capable of controlling …”. The Office considers that the function langue after the be capable of controlling is indefinite, is not required function of the controller. If the applicant consider the function is required, they shall be positively recited. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication 2020/0194287 to Hirochi (The art rejection is made based on the respective issued US Patent 11,177,143) in view of KR20200140435 to OH (The art rejection is made based on the respective English translation by PE2E).
In Reference to Claims 1, 3, 10-13
Hirochi discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a transfer chamber (Fig. 6, 170) provided with a transfer space in which a substrate unloaded from a substrate storage container is transferred; a first purge gas supplier (Fig. 6, 407) through which a first purge gas is supplied into the transfer chamber; a second purge gas (Fig. 6, 162, since Hirochi discloses that the supply of 162 can be either air or dry gas, the Office considers that one of the input 407 and 162 supplies gas and the other one supplies air) supplier through which a second purge gas different from the first purge gas is supplied into the transfer chamber; an exhauster (Fig. 6, 150) through which an inner atmosphere of the transfer chamber is exhausted; a circulation path (Fig. 6, 168A) connecting one end and the other end of the transfer space; a fan (Fig. 6, 178) provided on the circulation path or provided at an end portion of the circulation path and capable of circulating the inner atmosphere of the transfer chamber; and a controller (Fig. 7, 121)
The first purge gas comprises normal air and the second purge gas comprises inert gas (Col. 9, Line 5-15)
a moisture concentration sensor provided in at least one of the transfer chamber (Col. 9, Line 25-29)
Hirochi does not teach the controller operating the blower in two modes.
OH teaches a controller (140) operates the fan (40) with different rotational speeds at different time frames.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to incorporate teachings from OH into the design of Hirochi. Doing so, would result in the fan being controlled by the controller at different operation mode in order to meet system performance requirement. The Office considers “capable of controlling the fan such that a rotational speed of the fan varies between a first purge mode in which the first purge gas is supplied through the first purge gas supplier and a second purge mode in which the second purge gas is supplied through the second purge gas supplier " as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since Hirochi provides a system meet the structure limitation, the fan must be controlled with different operational mood with meets the functional limitation. Furthermore, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (See MPEP 2114))
In Reference to Claim 2
Hirochi discloses the first purge gas (Fig. 6, 407) comprises normal air and the second purge gas (Fig. 6, 162) comprise dry air
Hirochi does not teach “dry air whose moisture concentration is lower than that of the normal air” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the dry air to have the lower moisture concentration , since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
The Office considers “capable of controlling the fan " as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since Hirochi provides a system meet the structure limitation, the fan must be controlled with different operational mood with meets the functional limitation. Furthermore, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”
In Reference to Claims 4 and 5
Hirochi discloses the first purge gas (Fig. 6, 407) comprises dry air.
Hirochi does not teach “dry air whose moisture concentration is lower than that of the normal air” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the dry air to have the lower moisture concentration , since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
The Office considers “capable of controlling the fan " as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since Hirochi provides a system meet the structure limitation, the fan must be controlled with different operational mood with meets the functional limitation. Furthermore, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”
In Reference to Claims 6-9
Hirochi discloses comprising an oxygen concentration sensor (Fig. 6, 160) provided in at least one of the transfer chamber (Fig. 6, as showed) or an exhaust path constituting the exhauster, wherein the second purge gas comprises an inert gas (Col. 9, Line 10)
Hirochi does not teach the detail of function of the controller.
The Office considers “capable of controlling the fan " as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since Hirochi provides a system meet the structure limitation, the fan must be controlled with different operational mood with meets the functional limitation as well as the working environment situation such as the input air quality. Furthermore, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”
In Reference to Claim 14
Hirochi discloses an oxygen concentration sensor (Fig. 6, 160) provided in at least one of the transfer chamber or an exhaust path constituting the exhauster, wherein the first purge gas (Fig. 6, 407) comprises an inert gas and the second purge gas comprises dry air (Fig. 6, 162)
Hirochi does not teach “dry air whose moisture concentration is lower than that of the normal air” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the dry air to have the lower moisture concentration , since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
The Office considers “capable of controlling the fan " as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since Hirochi provides a system meet the structure limitation, the fan must be controlled with different operational mood with meets the functional limitation. Furthermore, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”
In Reference to Claim 15
Hirochi discloses a door (Fig. 1, 134, the loading port) provided at an opening through which an inside of the transfer chamber communicates with an outside of the transfer chamber, wherein the first purge (Fig. 6, 407) gas comprises an inert gas and the second purge gas (Fig. 6, 162) comprises dry air
Hirochi does not teach “dry air whose moisture concentration is lower than that of the normal air” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the dry air to have the lower moisture concentration , since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
The Office considers “capable of controlling the fan " as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since Hirochi provides a system meet the structure limitation, the fan must be controlled with different operational mood with meets the functional limitation. Furthermore, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”
In Reference to Claims 16 and 17
Hirochi discloses the controller for process control (Fig. 7 and Fig. 8).
Hirochi does not teach the switching between different operation modes.
The Office considers “capable of controlling the fan " as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since Hirochi provides a system meet the structure limitation, the fan must be controlled with different operational mood with meets the functional limitation. Furthermore, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”
In Reference to Claim 18
Hirochi discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising:(a) transferring a substrate unloaded from a substrate storage container within a transfer chamber (Fig. 8, step S801/S802); and (b) circulating an inner atmosphere of the transfer chamber by a fan (Fig. 6, 178) provided in the transfer chamber while supplying a first purge gas (Fig. 6, 407) or a second purge gas (Fig. 6, 162) different from the first purge gas into the transfer chamber and exhausting the inner atmosphere of the transfer chamber
The Office considers “capable of controlling the fan " as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since Hirochi provides a system meet the structure limitation, the fan must be controlled with different operational mood with meets the functional limitation. Furthermore, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”
In Reference to Claim 19
Hirochi discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (Fig. 7, 121) storing a program that causes, by a computer, a substrate processing apparatus to perform:(a) transferring a substrate unloaded from a substrate storage container within a transfer chamber (Fig. 8, S801/ S802); and (b) circulating an inner atmosphere of the transfer chamber by a fan (Fig. 6, 178) provided in the transfer chamber while supplying a first purge gas or a second purge gas different from the first purge gas into the transfer chamber and exhausting the inner atmosphere of the transfer chamber
The Office considers “capable of controlling the fan " as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since Hirochi provides a system meet the structure limitation, the fan must be controlled with different operational mood with meets the functional limitation. Furthermore, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 PM.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 5712705614. 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.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3748
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 10/21/25