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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “134” has been used to designate both “a fin” and “radiating element”, see paragraphs 0034 and 0036-0037. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 member” in claims 1, 6, 7, 8, and 20; .
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.
Paragraph [0006] discloses a substrate transfer door assembly is provided and includes a body, one or more radiating elements, a member, and at least one lifting coupler. The body includes a central portion. At least the central portion of the body operates as a substrate transfer door and covers at least one of an opening of a liner or an opening of a chamber wall of a substrate processing chamber. The one or more radiating elements radiating heat away from the body. The member extends from the body. The at least one lifting coupler is connected to the member and movable in a vertical direction between an open position and a closed position to cover the at least one of the opening of the liner or the opening of the chamber wall with the central portion of the body.
Paragraph [0009] discloses in other features, the substrate transfer door assembly further includes: a frame connected to and extending radially from the body; and a web held by the frame. The frame includes the member. The one or more radiating elements include the web.
Paragraph [00010] discloses in other features, the member is a first member. The frame includes multiple members including the first member. The web extends between and is connected to each of the members. In other features, the one or more radiating elements extend radially away from the body and toward the member.
Paragraph [00017] discloses in other features, the member extends from the body in a direction away from an interior of the substrate processing chamber. In other features, the one or more radiating elements extend into the opening of the substrate processing chamber. In other features, the central portion of the body is disposed between the liner and the chamber wall when the substrate transfer door assembly is in the closed state
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 12-14, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by over Guiver (US 20070251935).
Regarding claim 1, Guiver discloses a substrate transfer door assembly (figure 3) comprising:
a body (not shown, i.e. the body of the chamber door 315) comprising a central portion (see figure 3, i.e. the central section of the chamber door 315), wherein at least the central portion of the body operates as a substrate transfer door 315 (figs. 3) and covers at least one of an opening (not labeled) of a liner (317, 303) or an opening (i.e. the opening of the process chamber 301) of a chamber wall (not labeled, i.e. the walls of the process chamber 301) of a substrate processing chamber (301);
one or more radiating elements (305) radiating heat away from the body (not shown, i.e. the body of the chamber door 315);
a member F (see annotated fig. 3 below, i.e. perhaps called a flange) extending from the body (not shown, i.e. the body of the chamber door 315); and
at least one lifting coupler (A, see annotated fig. 3 below, i.e. an arm or a link coupled to the chamber door actuator 319) connected to the member F (see annotated fig. 3 below, i.e. perhaps called a flange) and movable in a vertical direction (see figure 4) between an open position (see figure 3) and a closed position (see figure 4) to cover the at least one of the opening (not labeled) of the liner (317, 303) or the opening (not shown, i.e. the opening of the process chamber 301) of the chamber wall (not labeled, i.e. the walls of the process chamber 301) with the central portion of the body (not shown, i.e. the body of the chamber door 315) (¶ 0032, 0034-0035).
PNG
media_image1.png
545
449
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 12, Guiver discloses a plurality of support members (307, i.e. substrate holders) connected to the body (not shown, i.e. the body of the chamber door 315) and to the lifting coupler (A, see annotated fig. 3 above, i.e. an arm or a link coupled to the chamber door actuator 319).
With respect to claim 13, Guiver discloses wherein the plurality of support members (307, i.e. substrate holders) at least one of radiate heat (305) away from the body (not shown, i.e. the body of the chamber door 315) or counterbalance weight of at least a portion of the one or more radiating elements (305).
With respect to claim 14, Guiver discloses wherein the body (not shown, i.e. the body of the chamber door 315) covers the opening (not labeled) of the liner (317, 303) and the opening (i.e. the opening of the process chamber 301) of the chamber wall (not labeled, i.e. the walls of the process chamber 301).
With respect to claim 18, Guiver discloses a substrate transfer system 200 (figure 2) comprising: the substrate transfer door assembly of claim 1 (see claim 1 as set forth above, an actuating element (A, see annotated fig. 3 above); an actuator (319) connected to the actuating element (A, see annotated fig. 3 above); and a controller (i.e. a torque control device.) controlling the actuator to move the substrate transfer door (315) assembly between an open state (see figure 3) and a closed state (see figure 4) (¶ 0034, 0036).
With respect to claim 19, Guiver discloses a plurality of support members (307, i.e. substrate holders) connected to the body (not shown, i.e. the body of the chamber door 315) and to the lifting coupler (A, see annotated fig. 3 above, i.e. an arm or a link coupled to the chamber door actuator 319), wherein the lifting coupler (A, see annotated fig. 3 above, i.e. an arm or a link coupled to the chamber door actuator 319) is connected to the actuating element (A, see annotated fig. 3 above).
With respect to claim 20, Guiver discloses wherein the member F (see annotated fig. 3 above, i.e. perhaps called a flange) extends from the body (not shown, i.e. the body of the chamber door 315) in a direction away (see figure 4) from an interior of the substrate processing chamber (301).
With respect to claim 21, Guiver discloses wherein the one or more radiating elements (305) extend into the opening (i.e. the opening of the process chamber 301) of the substrate processing chamber (301).
With respect to claim 22, Guiver discloses wherein the central portion (see figure 3, i.e. the central section of the chamber door 315) of the body (not shown, i.e. the body of the chamber door 315) is disposed between the liner (317, 303) and the chamber wall (not labeled, i.e. the walls of the process chamber 301) when the substrate transfer door assembly (figure 3) is in the closed state (see figure 4).
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) 2-5, 9-11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guiver (US 20070251935) in view of Hayashi et al. (US 20060252000).
Regarding claims 2-4, Guiver discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for wherein the one or more radiating elements comprise a bottom extension member that extends down from the body; wherein the one or more radiating elements comprise side extension members extending in an azimuthal direction away from the body; and wherein the one or more radiating elements comprise a fin extending radially from the body.
However, Hayashi teaches wherein the one or more radiating elements (31, i.e. the connecting bracket is made of a heat-conductive material such as copper or aluminum) comprise a bottom extension member (35, i.e. called a heat radiating fin structure) that extends down from the body (see figure 3); wherein the one or more radiating elements (31, i.e. the connecting bracket is made of a heat-conductive material such as copper or aluminum) comprise side extension members extending in an azimuthal direction away from the body (see figure 4); and wherein the one or more radiating elements (31, i.e. the connecting bracket is made of a heat-conductive material such as copper or aluminum) comprise a fin (35b) extending radially from the body (¶ 0046, 0050-0051).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a substrate heating apparatus. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Guiver and Hayashi before him or her, to include such radiating element(s) arrangements of Hayashi because it provides heat transfer from one element to another element. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it achieves a sufficient cooling effect of the fin structure (¶0050).
With respect to claim 5, Guiver in view of Hayashi discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Hayashi further discloses one or more support members (35a) extending from and supporting the fin (35b) (¶ 0050).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Guiver and Hayashi before him or her, to include such support member(s) arrangements of Hayashi because it provides heat transfer from one element to another element. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it achieves a sufficient cooling effect of the fin structure (¶0050).
With respect to claim 9, Guiver in view of Hayashi discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Hayashi further discloses wherein the one or more radiating elements (31, i.e. the connecting bracket is made of a heat-conductive material such as copper or aluminum) comprise a plurality of radiating elements (35b, i.e. called a plurality of fins) extending radially away from the body (¶ 0050).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Guiver and Hayashi before him or her, to include such radiating element(s) arrangements of Hayashi because it provides heat transfer from one element to another element. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it achieves a sufficient cooling effect of the fin structure (¶0050).
With respect to claim 10, Guiver in view of Hayashi discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Hayashi further discloses at least one support member (35a) extending radially from and structurally supporting the body (¶ 0050).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Guiver and Hayashi before him or her, to include such support member(s) arrangements of Hayashi because it provides heat transfer from one element to another element. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it achieves a sufficient cooling effect of the fin structure (¶0050).
With respect to claim 11, Guiver in view of Hayashi discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Hayashi further discloses wherein the at least one support member (22i.e. a base plate) counterbalances weight of at least a portion of the one or more radiating elements (31, i.e. the connecting bracket is made of a heat-conductive material such as copper or aluminum).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Guiver and Hayashi before him or her, to include such support member(s) arrangements of Hayashi because it provides heat transfer from one element to another element. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it achieves a sufficient cooling effect of the fin structure (¶0050).
With respect to claim 15, Guiver in view of Hayashi discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Hayashi further discloses a protective coating on at least a portion of an inner side of the body (see figure 3), wherein a portion of the coating faces the at least one of the opening in the liner or the opening in the chamber wall (¶ 0004, 0015).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Guiver and Hayashi before him or her, to include such a protective coating solution of Hayashi because it provides heat transfer from one element to another element in order to form a resist pattern on the substrate. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it achieves a sufficient cooling effect of the structure (¶0050).
With respect to claim 16, Guiver in view of Hayashi discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Hayashi further discloses wherein the protective coating (¶ 0002, 0015) faces at least one of an interior of the substrate processing chamber (20, i.e. called a case) or the opening in the liner (¶ 0045).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Guiver and Hayashi before him or her, to include such a protective coating solution of Hayashi because it provides heat transfer from one element to another element in order to form a resist pattern on the substrate. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it achieves a sufficient cooling effect of the structure (¶0050).
With respect to claim 17, Guiver in view of Hayashi discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Hayashi further discloses wherein: the body (301) comprises aluminum (¶ 0048); and the protective coating comprises at least one of yttrium oxide, aluminum oxide, aluminum hydroxide, yttrium oxyfluoride, zirconium oxide, or yttrium trifluoride (¶ 0050).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Guiver and Hayashi before him or her, to include such a body material and a protective coating solution of Hayashi because it provides heat transfer from one element to another element in order to form a resist pattern on the substrate. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it achieves a sufficient cooling effect of the structure (¶0050).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the Drawings Objection and the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (Claim Interpretation), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liang et al. (US 12,198,951).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KET D DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KET D DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights