DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 are currently pending.
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:
Claim 1 states “a heating unit configured to support and heat a substrate”
Prong 1: the phrase “configured to” is used
Prong 2: a generic placeholder of “unit” is present
Prong 3: The addition of “heating” to the unit does not provide sufficient structure.
Interpretation: The specification identifies the heating unit as 42 and per ¶ 34 states that the heating unit comprises a heating plate. Therefore the heating unit will be interpreted as a heating plate or the equivalent.
Claim 3 states “an exhaust unit configured to discharge a gas”
Prong 1: the phrase “configured to” is used
Prong 2: a generic placeholder of “unit” is present
Prong 3: The addition of “exhaust” to the unit does not provide sufficient structure.
Interpretation: The specification identifies the exhaust unit as 80 and per ¶ 68 states that the exhaust unit comprises a plurality of pipes designed to channel gases. Therefore the heating unit will be interpreted as a plurality of piping or the equivalent.
Claim 4 states “a partition unit configured to partition the inner space”
Prong 1: : the phrase “configured to” is used
Prong 2: a generic placeholder of “unit” is present
Prong 3: The addition of “partition” to the unit does not provide sufficient structure.
Interpretation: The specification identifies the partition unit as 60 and per Figure 3 and ¶ 45 states that the partition unit comprises a plate to separate two spaces. Therefore the heating unit will be interpreted as a plate separating two chambers or the equivalent.
Claim 4 states “a switching unit configured to switch”
Prong 1: the phrase “configured to” is used
Prong 2: a generic placeholder of “unit” is present
Prong 3: The addition of “switching” to the unit does not provide sufficient structure.
Interpretation: The specification identifies the switching unit as 90 and per ¶ 75 states that the switching unit comprises a plurality of channels designed to direct gases. Therefore the heating unit will be interpreted as a plurality of channels or the equivalent.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0169373 (Aoki hereinafter) in view of US 2019/0258166 (Otsuji hereinafter) and further in view of KR 20130110005 (Kawasaki hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Aoki teaches a heat treatment apparatus (Figures 1 and 6) that discloses a house configured to form an inner space (Housing 110 with internal area in Figure 6); a heating unit disposed in the inner space configured to support and heat a substrate onto which a processing liquid is supplied (Heating unit 120 in Figure 6 per ¶ 68); a bottom wall (Bottom wall 122 in Figure 6); a chamber including a top plate covering the heating unit and side walls provided between the bottom wall and the top plate (Chamber formed by 123 with clearly shown side walls and a top plate in Figure 6), the chamber being configured to be detachably attached to a base member provided with the heating unit (Broadest reasonable interpretation that 122 can be removed off of the spacers 124); and a guide unit (Guide unit 164).
Aoki is silent with respect that the chamber includes a bottom wall surrounding the substrate supported by the heating unit, and wherein the bottom wall, the top wall, and the side walls are integrally formed as one body and move together such that the chamber is separable from the base member.
However, Otsuji teaches a substrate treatment chamber (Figure 2) that discloses a chamber that includes a bottom wall surrounding the substrate supported by the heating unit (Figure 2 shows chamber 10 with the bottom wall 16 surrounding the substate W that is supported by the heater 8), and wherein the bottom wall, a top wall, and side walls are integrally formed as one body and move together such that the chamber is separable from a base member (Figure 2 of Otsuji shows the chamber as a unitary body aside from the opening covered by the shutter and this chamber would be detachable per the teachings of Aoki)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the entrance point of the substrate from a lifted and separated chamber of Aoki to the side door entry style of Otsuji to minimize moving parts while minimizing the sealing surfaces.
Aoki is silent with respect to a guide unit configured to guide a movement of the chamber from an installation position, where an inner space of the chamber surrounds the substrate on the heating unit, in a driving direction along an upper surface of the heating unit, the driving direction being along which the heating unit and a carry-in opening for the substrate provided in the housing are arranged.
However, Kawasaki teaches a substrate moving and treatment apparatus that discloses a central movement path with sidewall access points (Figure 11 with substrate movement mechanism 2a being central to all of the treatment chambers). The resultant combination would take Figure 6 of Aoki and allow for an opening for 161 to pass through wall 110 therefore teaching a guide unit configured to guide a movement of the chamber from an installation position (Guide unit 154 of Aoki), where an inner space of the chamber surrounds the substrate on the heating unit (Figure 6 of Aoki), in a driving direction along an upper surface of the heating unit, the driving direction being along which the heating unit and a carry-in opening for the substrate provided in the housing are arranged (carry in opening per Kawasaki Figure 11 on the sidewall of 110 of Aoki).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the substrate movement of Aoki with the teachings of Kawasaki to allow for a central movement device to easily move substrates around once treatment has completed.
Regarding claim 2, Aoki’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 there Aoki further discloses that the guide unit includes a rail member extending in the driving direction (Rail of guide unit 164 seen in Figure 6 of Aoki), and the rail member includes a rail main body on which a roller provided at the chamber drives (Rollers created by the ball-screw described in ¶ 77 of Aoki); and a recess where the roller is accommodated when the chamber is located at the installation position (Recess created by the grooves for the ball-screw design to function).
Regarding claim 3, Aoki’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 there Aoki further discloses an exhaust unit configured to discharge a gas from the inner space of the chamber such that the gas flows toward one side along the driving direction (Exhaust 151 in Figures 6, 7, 10a, and 10b with ¶ 75 on the side of rails 164 of Aoki).
Regarding claim 4, Aoki’s modified teachings are described above in claim 3 there Aoki further discloses a partition unit configured to partition the inner space of the chamber into a first space where the substrate on the heating unit is exposed and a second space located above the first space (Partition member 133 with the first space being at the wafer “W” in Figure 6 and the second space being anywhere above 133 in Figure 6 of Aoki); and a switching unit configured to switch between a first state where the gas is discharged through the first space and a second state where the gas is discharged through the second space (The first state is shown in Figure 10b of Aoki and the second state is shown in Figure 10a of Aoki), wherein the partition unit is allowed to be moved together with the chamber with respect to the base member (Evident of Figure 6 of Aoki when 123 is elevated).
Regarding claim 5, Aoki’s modified teachings are described above in claim 3 there Aoki further discloses that the exhaust unit is detachably attached to the chamber (The exhaust unit is shown as a different component than that of the chamber and therefore the Examiner is viewing the exhaust unit as capable of being detached).
Regarding claim 6, Aoki’s modified teachings are described above in claim 3 there Aoki further discloses that the exhaust unit includes a pipe forming channels through which an exhaust gas from the inner space of the chamber flows and extending in the driving direction (Pipes within the exhaust unit 151 as seen in Figures 6, 7, and 8 of Aoki); and a mounting member provided away from the pipe and equipped with a fixing member configured to fix the chamber and the exhaust unit (Inherent feature to create a gas seal between 151 and 123 of Aoki).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0169373 (Aoki) in view of US 2019/00258166 (Otsuji) in view of in view of KR 20130110005 (Kawasaki) and further in view of US 2007/0022626 (Gomi hereinafter).
Regarding claim 7, Aoki’s modified teachings are described above in claim 3 but are silent with respect to a shutter member disposed with a gap therebetween with the side wall of the chamber located at the installation position, and configured to switch between a closed state where a carry-in/out opening for the substrate provided in the side wall is covered from a side and an open state where the carry-in/out opening is opened, wherein the shutter member is provided at the base member, the exhaust unit discharges the gas from the inner space of the chamber through a discharge opening provided near the heating unit, and the carry-in/out opening and the discharge opening are arranged with the heating unit interposed therebetween in the driving direction.
However, Gomi teaches a wafer treating apparatus that discloses a shutter member disposed with a gap therebetween with the side wall of the chamber located at the installation position, and configured to switch between a closed state where a carry-in/out opening for the substrate provided in the side wall is covered from a side and an open state where the carry-in/out opening is opened (Figure 5, Shutter 68 allowing the entry of the wafer into the equivalent chamber via the sidewall per ¶ 95). The resultant combination would be such that the sidewall of Aoki would feature the shutter of Gomi and therefore disclose wherein the shutter member is provided at the base member, the exhaust unit discharges the gas from the inner space of the chamber through a discharge opening provided near the heating unit (Discharge from the exhaust unit 151 features and outlet “near” the heating unit of Aoki), and the carry-in/out opening and the discharge opening are arranged with the heating unit interposed therebetween in the driving direction (Evident from Figure 5 of Gomi as added to Aoki).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the entry point of the wafer of Aoki with the entry point and structure of Gomi to minimize the number of moving parts in Aoki by keeping the top plate, exhaust unit, and sidewalls stationary while requiring only one sidewall to feature the shutter of Gomi.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0169373 (Aoki) in view of US 2019/00258166 (Otsuji) in view of in view of KR 20130110005 (Kawasaki).
Regarding claim 8, Aoki teaches a heat treatment apparatus (Figures 1 and 6) that discloses a house configured to form an inner space (Housing 110 with internal area in Figure 6); a heating unit disposed in the inner space configured to support and heat a substrate onto which a processing liquid is supplied (Heating unit 120 in Figure 6 per ¶ 68); a bottom wall surrounding the substrate supported by the heating unit (Bottom wall 122 in Figure 6); a chamber including a top plate covering the heating unit and side walls provided between the bottom wall and the top plate (Chamber formed by 123 with clearly shown side walls and a top plate in Figure 6), the chamber being configured to be detachably attached to a base member provided with the heating unit (Broadest reasonable interpretation that 122 can be removed off of the spacers 124); and a guide unit (Guide unit 164), wherein the guide unit includes a rail unit which extends in the driving direction and on which a roller provided at the chamber drives (¶ 77 of Aoki discloses the rail unit 164 with the rollers of a ball-screw system), the rail unit is integrally formed with the bottom wall (Figure 6 shows the rail system 164 and the bottom wall 122), and the rail unit and the bottom wall are detachably attached to the base member independently of the chamber (Evident from Figure 6 of Aoki).
Aoki is silent with respect to a guide unit configured to guide a movement of the chamber from an installation position, where an inner space of the chamber surrounds the substrate on the heating unit, in a driving direction along an upper surface of the heating unit, the driving direction being along which the heating unit and a carry-in opening for the substrate provided in the housing are arranged.
However, Kawasaki teaches a substrate moving and treatment apparatus that discloses a central movement path with sidewall access points (Figure 11 with substrate movement mechanism 2a being central to all of the treatment chambers). The resultant combination would take Figure 6 of Aoki and allow for an opening for 161 to pass through wall 110 therefore teaching a guide unit configured to guide a movement of the chamber from an installation position (Guide unit 154 of Aoki), where an inner space of the chamber surrounds the substrate on the heating unit (Figure 6 of Aoki), in a driving direction along an upper surface of the heating unit, the driving direction being along which the heating unit and a carry-in opening for the substrate provided in the housing are arranged (carry in opening per Kawasaki Figure 11 on the sidewall of 110 of Aoki).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the substrate movement of Aoki with the teachings of Kawasaki to allow for a central movement device to easily move substrates around once treatment has completed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding claim 8 has been reviewed and is not found to be persuasive. Applicant argues that the limitation of “the rail unit is integrally formed with the bottom wall, and the rail unit and the bottom wall are detachably attached to the base member independently of the chamber” is not taught by the combination of Aoki and Kawasaki. The rejection above relies on the Aoki reference in Figure 6 to show the rail system 164 and the bottom wall 122 being integrally formed and under the broadest reasonable interpretation the bottom wall can be removed/detached from the chamber due to the presence of the spacers 124. Applicant is invited to further clarify the structure they want and as shown in their figures, there is significant differences to claim relative to the presented combination of Aoki and Kawasaki as well as the combinations reliant of Otsuji and Gomi. However, for at least this reason, Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 8 are not found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights