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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, claims 1-20, in the reply filed on 20 August 2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, claim 7 “frame part” and “support frame” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Newly presented and annotated Fig. 3 is not legible and also appears to add new matter in that there is no indication in the original disclosure that as claimed the specifics of claim 7 are equal to what is now presented in Fig. 3.
Additionally, claim 14 “the auxiliary part has a top surface having the same plane as a top surface of the upper support part between the first processing module, the second processing module and the upper support part” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Newly presented Fig. 9 is appears to add to new matter in that there is no indication in the original disclosure that as claimed the specifics of claim 14 are equal to what is now presented in Fig. 9.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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:
Claim 1
Processing module which has been interpreted as a substrate processing part and a substrate loading part and equivalents thereto as set forth, e.g., in para. 65, 66,69 of the specification.
Utility part which has been interpreted as a gas supply part, an exhaust part and a control part and equivalents thereto as set forth, e.g., in para. 83 of the specification. Control part is not considered a specific structure; see rejections under 35 USC 112b below.
Upper support part which has been interpreted as an upper support and a support bracket and equivalents thereto as set forth, e.g., in para. 115 of the specification
Claim 2
Processing part which has been interpreted as a reaction tube and equivalents thereto as set forth, e.g., in para. 66 of the specification
Loading part which has been interpreted as boat and equivalents thereto as set forth, e.g., in para. 69 of the specification
Claim 10
Gas supply part which has been interpreted as a supply tube and equivalents thereto as set forth, e.g., in para. 85 of the specification
Exhaust part which has been interpreted as an exhaust line and equivalents thereto as set forth, e.g., in para. 87 of the specification
Control part which has been interpreted as a sensor and equivalents thereto as set forth, e.g., in para. 88 of the specification
Claim 12
Lower support part which has been interpreted as a lower support, a gas box and an auxiliary control part and equivalents thereto as set forth, e.g., in para. 155 of the specification. Auxiliary control part is not considered a specific structure; see rejections under 35 USC 112b below.
Claim 13
auxiliary utility part which has been interpreted as at least one of a purge gas supply part, and/or an auxiliary control part and equivalents thereto as set forth, e.g., in para. 138 of the specification. None of a purge gas supply part, a processing module, or an auxiliary control part is considered a specific structure; see rejections under 35 USC 112b below.
Claims 15 and 16
Valve module which has been interpreted as a valve and equivalents thereto as set forth, e.g., in para. 139 of the specification
Claim 17
Purge gas supply part wherein no specific structure was located in the specification. See rejections under 35 USC 112b below.
Auxiliary control part wherein no specific structure was located in the specification. See rejections under 35 USC 112b below.
Claim 19
Substrate storage module wherein no specific structure was located in the specification. See rejections under 35 USC 112a,b below.
Substrate transfer module which has been interpreted as transfer part and equivalents thereto as set forth, e.g., in para. 65 of the specification. Substrate transfer module is not considered a specific structure; see rejections under 35 USC 112b below.
Claim 7 frame part, has not been interpreted under the statute, wherein frame is considered sufficient structure and no claimed function is attributed to the nonce term.
Claim 7 cover part, has not been interpreted under the statute, wherein cover is considered sufficient structure and no claimed function is attributed to the nonce term.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence.
Claim 1, 12-13, 17 and 19 limitations – utility part (including control part), lower support part (including auxiliary control part), auxiliary utility part (including purge gas supply part, auxiliary control part), purge gas supply part (of auxiliary utility part), auxiliary control part (of auxiliary utility part), substrate storage module and substrate transfer module -- invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, claims 1-20 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In order to expedite examination, for each limitation, any feature capable of performing the claimed function will be considered readable thereon. In order to expedite examination, for each limitation, any feature capable of performing the claimed function will be considered readable thereon.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. 2022/0165588 to Kim et al.
Regarding claim 1, in Figs. 1-4, Kim et al. disclose a substrate processing apparatus substantially as claimed and comprising: a first processing module (e.g., substrate processing part 110 and a substrate loading part 130) in which substrate processing is performed on a plurality of substrates; a second processing module (e.g., substrate processing part 110 and a substrate loading part 130) disposed adjacent to the first processing module to perform the substrate processing on the plurality of substrates; a first utility part (e.g., gas supply part 140, an exhaust part 121b/122b and control part 150, see, e.g., para. 67 wherein the control part may open and close to provide access between the control part and the corresponding processing module similar to a valve) disposed adjacent to a rear surface of the first processing module; a second utility part (e.g., gas supply part 140, an exhaust part 121b/122b and control part 150, see, e.g., para. 67 wherein the control part may open and close to provide access between the control part and the corresponding processing module similar to a valve) part disposed adjacent to a rear surface of the second processing module to define a maintenance space (not numbered) between the second processing module and the first utility unit; and an upper support part (e.g., an upper support 121a and a support bracket 122a – corresponding to both the first and second processing modules) provided between the first utility part and the second utility part to divide the maintenance space into an upper area and a lower area. Regarding claim limitation, “wherein the upper area allows maintenance access to components disposed at an upper aside of the first processing module and the second processing module, and the lower area allows maintenance access to components disposed at a lower side of the first processing module and the second processing module” is considered an intended use of the claimed invention, wherein the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 2, in Kim et al., the first processing module and the second processing module each include a substrate processing part (110) disposed at an upper side to process the substrates; and a substrate loading part (130) disposed below the processing part to load and unload the substrates.
With respect to claim 3, in Kim et al. the upper support part is disposed at a height corresponding to a lower side of each of the first substrate processing part and the second substrate processing part (see, e.g., Figs. 1-3).
With respect to claim 4, in Kim et al., the upper support part is disposed to be in contact with a rear surface of each of the first processing module and the second processing module (via 125, see, e.g., Figs. 1-3).
With respect to claim 5, in Kim et al., the upper support part comprises: a support bracket (e.g., 122a) protruding from the first utility part and the second utility part in opposite directions; and an upper support (e.g., 121a) supported and installed on the support frame.
With respect to claim 6, in Kim et al., the upper support part comprises: a support frame (e.g., 122a) provided to correspond to an area surrounded by a rear surface of the first processing module, a rear surface of the second processing module, an inner surface of the first utility part, and an inner surface of the second utility part; and an upper support (e.g., 121a) supported and installed on the support frame.
With respect to claim 7, in Kim et al., the upper support part comprises: a frame part (e.g., 122a) installed between the first utility part and the second utility part; and cover part (e.g., 121a) that covers the frame part and is detachably installed with respect to the processing modules (by disconnecting 125).
With respect to claim 8, in Kim et al., the upper support part comprises a plurality of through-holes (on either side of both 122A, as illustrate in Fig. 4) that are penetrated in the vertical direction.
With respect to claim 9, in Kim et al., an outermost vertical surface of the first processing module and an outer most vertical surface of the first utility part lie in substantially a same plane; and an outermost vertical surface of the second processing module and an outermost vertical surface of the second utility part lie in substantially a same plane. See, e.g., Fig. 3 and also note the apparatus is provided at least substantially symmetrically. Also see above regarding the clarity of the claim language.
With respect to claim 10, in Kim et al., each of the first utility part and the second utility part comprises: a gas supply part (140) configured to supply a gas to the corresponding processing module; a gas exhaust part (121b/122b) configured to exhaust gas from the corresponding module; and a control part (150, see, e.g., para. 67 wherein the control part may open and close to provide access between the control part and the corresponding processing module similar to a valve) to control the corresponding processing module. At least portions of the first and second control parts are disposed above the corresponding gas supply part and the corresponding gas exhaust part.
With respect to claim 11, in Kim et al., the upper support part has one end disposed at a height corresponding to a boundary between the first gas supply part, the first gas exhaust part, and the first control part, and the other end disposed at a height corresponding to a boundary between the second gas supply part, the second gas exhaust part, and the second control part. See, e.g., Figs. 1-3.
Claim(s) 12-13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. as applied to claims 1-11 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2019/0198359 to Kamimura et al.
Kim et al. discloses the substrate processing apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Kim et al. fail to disclose the apparatus further comprising a lower support part (e.g., a lower support, a gas box and an auxiliary control part) disposed at a bottom surface of the lower area in the maintenance space between the first utility part and the second utility part OR an auxiliary utility part (e.g., at least one of a purge gas supply part, a processing module, or an auxiliary control part OR a valve module (e.g., valve) configured to control a gas, which is supplied to the first processing module and the second processing module from the first utility part and the second utility part, respectively.
In Figs. 1-5, thereof, Kamimura et al. disclose a lower support part (e.g., a lower support -- floor box/67) disposed at a bottom surface of the lower area in the maintenance space between a first utility part and a second utility part or an auxiliary utility part (e.g., at least one of a purge gas supply part, a processing module, or an auxiliary control part—electric cable) provided on a lower side of the upper support part for the purpose of accommodating various facility and utility features (e.g., a gas box/exhaust duct or an auxiliary control part/electric cable, etc., see, e.g., para. 51). Additionally, it is noted that the courts have ruled the mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), wherein both Kim et al. and Kamimura et al. disclose the provision of various boxes comprising facility and utility features for supporting the processes of the apparatus.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a lower support part or auxiliary utility part in Kim et al. in order to accommodate various facility and utility features as taught by Kamimura et al.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. as applied to claims 1-11 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2023/0253230 to Kadobe et al.
Kim et al. discloses the substrate processing apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Kim et al. fail to disclose the apparatus further comprising a plurality of safety bars having one end detachably coupled to a rear surface of the first utility part and the other end detachably coupled to a rear surface of the second utility part at upper heights of the upper support part.
In Figs. 10-11, Kadobe et al. disclose safety bars (6) having one end detachably coupled to a rear surface of a first utility part and the other end detachably coupled to a rear surface of a second utility part for the purpose of preventing an operator from falling from an upper maintenance area (see, e.g., Figs. 10-13 and paras. 57 and 65-90). Note: in Kim et al. inclusion of safety bars as suggested in Kadobe et al. would be placed at a position corresponding to upper heights of the upper support part.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a plurality of safety bars having one end detachably coupled to a rear surface of the first utility part and the other end detachably coupled to a rear surface of the second utility part at upper heights of the upper support part in Kim et al. in order to of prevent an operator from falling from an upper maintenance area as taught by Kadobe et al.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. 2022/0165588 to Kim et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0198359 to Kamimura et al.
Regarding claim 19, in Figs. 1-4, Kim et al. disclose a substrate processing system substantially as claimed and comprising: a substrate processing apparatus configured to process the substrate and has a vertical structure, comprising: a first processing module (e.g., substrate processing part 110 and a substrate loading part 130) in which substrate processing is performed on a plurality of substrates; a second processing module (e.g., substrate processing part 110 and a substrate loading part 130)disposed adjacent to the first processing module to perform the substrate processing on the plurality of substrates; a first utility part (e.g., gas supply part 140, an exhaust part 121b/122b and control part, 150, see, e.g., para. 67 wherein the control part may open and close to provide access between the control part and the corresponding processing module similar to a valve) disposed adjacent to a rear surface of the first processing module; a second utility part (e.g., gas supply part 140, an exhaust part 121b/122b and control part 150, see, e.g., para. 67 wherein the control part may open and close to provide access between the control part and the corresponding processing module similar to a valve) disposed adjacent to a rear surface of the second processing module to define a maintenance space (not numbered) between the second processing module and the first utility unit; and an upper support part (e.g., an upper support 121a and a support bracket 122a –corresponding to both the first and second processing modules) provided between the first utility part and the second utility part to divide the maintenance space into an upper area and a lower area. The first processing module and the second processing module each include a substrate processing part (110) dispose at an upper side to process the substrates; and a substrate loading part (130) disposed below the processing part to load and unload the substrates. Regarding claim limitation, “wherein the upper area allows maintenance access to components disposed at an upper aside of the first processing module and the second processing module, and the lower area allows maintenance access to components disposed at a lower side of the first processing module and the second processing module” is considered an intended use of the claimed invention, wherein the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
However, although well-known in the art, Kim et al. fail to disclose the system further comprising: a substrate storage module in which a substrate is loaded and stored; and a substrate transfer module configured to transfer the substrate between the substrate storage module and the substrate processing apparatus.
In Figs. 1-3, Kamimura et al. disclose a substrate processing system comprising a substrate storage module (9) in which a substrate is loaded and stored; a substrate processing apparatus (3A and 3B); and a substrate transfer module (7 and 8) configured to transfer the substrate between the substrate storage module and the substrate processing apparatus for the purposes of storing a pod for accommodating a plurality of substrates and for transferring a substrate between the substrate storage module and the substrate processing apparatus, respectively (see, e.g., para. 14).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the substrate processing system of Kim et al. having a substrate storage module and a substrate transfer module in order to store a pod for accommodating a plurality of substrates and to transfer a substrate between the substrate storage module and the substrate processing apparatus, respectively, as taught by Kamimura et al.
With respect to claim 20, in modified Kim et al., Kamimura et al., teach the substrate transfer module is disposed adjacent to a front surface of each of the first processing module and the second processing module and is used commonly for the first processing module and the second processing module.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. See below.
Regarding the drawing objections, the amendments to Fig. 4 would be acceptable. However, the amended drawing can only be accepted as a whole and as set forth above at least some of the drawing objections remain.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 112 a with respect to interpretations under 35 USC 112f, these rejections have been withdrawn based on the further information provided by Applicant and further investigation into the original disclosure.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 112 b with respect to interpretations under 35 USC 112f and claim 12, the rejections with respect to lower support part is maintained because auxiliary control part does not have a specific structural connotation.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 112 b with respect to interpretations under 35 USC 112f and claim 13, the rejections with respect to auxiliary utility part is maintained because purge gas supply part and auxiliary control part do not have a specific structural connotation.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 112 b with respect to interpretations under 35 USC 112f and claim 17, the rejections with respect to purge gas supply part and auxiliary control part are maintained because purge gas supply part and auxiliary control part do not have a specific structural connotation.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 112 b with respect to interpretations under 35 USC 112f and claim 19, the rejections with respect to substrate storage module are maintained because substrate storage module and substrate storage part do not have a specific structural connotation.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 112 b with respect to interpretations under 35 USC 112f and claim 19, the rejections with respect to substrate transfer module are maintained because substrate transfer module and substrate transfer part do not have a specific structural connotation.
Regarding prior art rejections, Applicant has argued that the amended claims distinguish over prior art reference, Kim, as Kim as the upper support part of Kim are features including an exhaust tube and a sealing case, and therefore are not configured to divide the maintenance space into upper parts and lower parts. Examiner disagrees and notes that their mere presence (i.e. the presence of the upper support part) within the maintenance are renders the maintenance area separated into an upper area arranged there above and a lower area there below. Additionally, with respect to accessing unnamed components disposed on an upper side of the first processing module and the second processing module allowed by the upper area and accessing unnamed components disposed on the lower side of the first processing module and the second processing module allowed by the lower area, this is considered a feature drawn to an intended use of the claimed invention, wherein the courts have ruled a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See above modified rejections.
Conclusion
The (prior) art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP Pubs. 2010/0158642; 2020/0071821 and KR20220132171 disclose providing support/utility parts between processing chambers.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, 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.
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.
/KARLA A MOORE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights