DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on March 31, 2026. Claims 1, 5, 7, and 9-20 are amended; claims 2-4, 6, and 8 are canceled; claims 21 and 22 are new.
The applicant contends that the cited prior art fails to disclose the new material stipulating complete overlap of the “entire” vacuum transfer module with the process modules (pp. 9-10).
In response, the examiner concurs, and the prior art rejections have been withdrawn accordingly. However, the contested language appears to constitute new matter, and 112(a) rejections have been applied below.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner observes that the third paragraph of claim 1, as well as claim 7, recite a non-elected embodiment that has already been removed via restriction. That is, the embodiment of the vacuum transfer module being “under” the process module has been formally withdrawn. Accordingly, those aspects of claims 1 and 7 directed to the non-elected embodiment will not be considered for purposes of examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 12-13, 18-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 at the time the application was filed had possession of the claimed invention. Each of these claims has appended the term “structure” to each of process module, vacuum transfer module, and loadlock module to generate a variety of new titles, e.g., “vacuum transfer module structure.” This language is not supported by the original disclosure and, therefore, constitutes new matter.
Separately, the third paragraph of claim 1 has been amended to stipulate that the “entire vacuum transfer module structure is located completely over…the process modules structures.” However, as shown by the elected embodiment of Figure 6, those portions of the vacuum transfer module (20) containing the transfer robots (23) are disposed laterally to the process modules (30), not “completely over” them. For this reason, the new material recited by claim 1 constitutes new matter.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. This claim stipulates that the vacuum transfer module “overlaps all of the process module structures as viewed from above.” However, as shown by at least Figures 2, 3, and 6, the vacuum transfer module (20) only partially overlaps the footprint of the process modules (30). For this reason, the claim is rejected for the recitation of new matter.
Regarding the 112(a) rejections, all claims will provisionally be examined as written to expedite prosecution.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 12-13, 18-19, and 21-22 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. Each of these claims has appended the term “structure” to each of process module, vacuum transfer module, and loadlock module to generate a variety of new titles, e.g., “vacuum transfer module structure.” It is unclear how the novel term of “structure” modifies the existing term of “module.” That is, what is the difference between simply a “module,” on the one hand, and a “module structure,” on the other? Further, the 112(f) status of “structure” is indefinite, as it is unclear if the term is a generic placeholder. The examiner suggests deleting every variant of “structure” from the claim set. To expedite prosecution, the examiner will interpret “structure” as being commensurate in scope with “module.”
Separately, the final paragraph of claim 1 reads, “the at least one of the process module structures, the vacuum transfer module structure…” Firstly, “the at least one of” lacks antecedent basis because the phrase “at least one of” does not precede the titles of the three modules when first invoked. Secondly, the diction renders it is unclear if all three modules must overlap in some way or if only two of them must overlap. Clarification is required. To promote compact prosecution, the examiner will accept the prior art disclosure of overlap between any two of the modules as satisfying the contested limitation.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Jang et al., US 2004/0141832. Jang provides a vacuum transfer module (210) which overlaps with multiple process modules (360, 370) as viewed from above (Figs. 4-5; [0046]).
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