DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Applicant’s Restriction election filed on 03/06/2026 electing Group I (Claims 1 – 15). Claims 1 - 15 are examined
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (Claims 1 – 15) in the reply filed on 03/06/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 16 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II (Claims 16 – 20), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/06/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Figs. 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Applicant’s Figs. 1 and 2 appear similar to Figs. 6 and 7 of Lee et al. (2021/0054507A1) with the only difference being different reference characters used to identify identical structural elements.
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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, l. 3 and Claim 15, l. 3 “heating unit” interpreted as ‘unit for heating’ invokes 112(f) interpretation. MPEP2181(I)(A) includes “unit for…” among a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim 1, l. 4 and Claim 15, l. 4 “cooling unit” interpreted as ‘unit for cooling’ invokes 112(f) interpretation. MPEP2181(I)(A) includes “unit for…” among a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim 1, l. 5 and Claim 15, l. 5 “transfer unit” interpreted as ‘unit for transferring’ invokes 112(f) interpretation. MPEP2181(I)(A) includes “unit for…” among a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 recites “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first air layer is sealed between two different metal plates sequentially bonded onto the body”. Claim 1, l. 8 recites “…a first air layer provided inside the body”. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends because it would be impossible for the “first air layer provided inside the body” while also being “first air layer is sealed between two different metal plates sequentially bonded onto the body”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 4 and 6 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (10,586,719) in view of Hiromichi et al. (JP2015076457A, cited in 03/05/2024 IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches, in Figs. 1 - 17, the invention as claimed including a substrate (W – Figs. 1, 7, 12, 14, and 15) treating apparatus comprising: a housing (walls shown in Figs. 3 and 5 defining each “baking unit 420 or 800” comprising “cooling plate 820 or 830” and “heating unit 1000”) providing a space in which a substrate (W – Col. 7, ll. 55 - 60) is treated; a heating unit (1000 - Col. 8, ll. 1 – 25, structure recited below knocks out 112(f) interpretation.) disposed in the housing and heating the substrate (W); a cooling unit (As discussed in the ‘Claim Interpretation’ section above, “cooling unit” invokes 112(f) interpretation and the broadest reasonable interpretation is “cooling plate 820” in Col. 8, ll. 1 – 10 but labeled as ‘830’ in Figs. 3 and 5.) disposed in the housing and cooling the substrate; and a transfer unit (As discussed in the ‘Claim Interpretation’ section above, “transfer unit” invokes 112(f) interpretation and the broadest reasonable interpretation is 432 – robot, Col. 7, ll. 15 – 20.) for moving the substrate, wherein the heating unit (1000) comprises: a body (1300/1320 – Fig. 7) comprising a heater (1400/1420 and 1440); a first air layer (labeled ‘1st air layer’ in Fig. 13 marked up below) provided inside the body (1300/1320 – Fig. 7) for thermal insulation and formed in a first direction (labeled ‘1st direction’ in Fig. 13 marked up below) as a longitudinal direction thereof; and a second air layer (labeled ‘2nd air layer’ in Fig. 13 marked up below) provided inside the body (1300/1320 – Fig. 7) for thermal insulation and formed in a second direction (labeled ‘2nd direction’ in Fig. 13 marked up below) as a longitudinal direction thereof. Kim teaches, in the Abstract, “… a buffer space for restricting a heat transfer rate of heat provided from the heating member to the upper surface is formed. The buffer space insulates a central area and a peripheral area, thereby maximizing a temperature difference between the central area and the peripheral area”. Kim is silent on said heater being “a heater therein”, interpreted as said heater being inside the body.
PNG
media_image1.png
798
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hiromichi teaches, in Figs. 5 and 6, a similar heating unit having a body (13 and 14) comprising a heater (11) therein, i.e., located inside the body. Hiromichi teaches, in Para. [0029], “In the figure, the heating stage 10 comprises a lower stage 13 and an upper stage 14 which are formed of a good conductor of heat. The lower stage 13 is provided with a heater 11 capable of heating a region corresponding to the area of the substrate 7”.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with the heater located inside the body, taught by Hiromichi, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the heating unit having a body comprising a first air layer provided inside the body for thermal insulation and formed in a first direction as a longitudinal direction thereof; and a second air layer provided inside the body for thermal insulation and formed in a second direction as a longitudinal direction thereof, and a heater located inside the body, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the heater location, taught by Hiromichi, for the heater location of Kim, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the heater located inside the body would have heated up the inside of said body when electricity was supplied to said heater. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Re Claim 2, Kim, i.v., Hiromichi, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Kim further teaches, in Fig. 13 marked up above, wherein the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction.
Re Claim 3, Kim, i.v., Hiromichi, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Kim further teaches, in Figs. 9, 12, 16, and 17, wherein the first air layer (labeled in Fig. 13 marked up above) is provided adjacent to an upper surface of the body. Fig. 13 was a plan view whereas Figs. 9, 12, 16, and 17 were side cross-sectional views which showed that the air layers (1360, 1360a, 1360b) were adjacent to an upper surface (surface were the substrate (W) sat) of the body.
Re Claim 4, Kim, i.v., Hiromichi, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Kim further teaches, in Fig. 13 marked up above, wherein the second air layer is provided adjacent to an outer surface of the body.
Re Claim 6, Kim, i.v., Hiromichi, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the first air layer is sealed between two different metal plates sequentially bonded onto the body.
Hiromichi, further teaches in Figs. 3 – 6, an air layer (12, 12b, 12c, 12d) sealed between two different metal plates (13 and 14) sequentially bonded together to form the body.
Thus, improving a particular device (heating unit), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Hiromichi, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the Hiromichi of Kim, i.v., Hiromichi, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that milling the first air layer space into the mating face(s) of one or both metal plates that would be sequentially bonded together and then the sandwich of said bonded metal plates would have been bonded to the body having said heater inside the body would have facilitated reducing the cost by utilizing conventional subtractive manufacturing techniques like milling or using a lathe to cut out a recess, i.e., the first air layer space, in the mating face(s) of one or both metal plates. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Re Claims 7 and 8, Kim, i.v., Hiromichi, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above and Kim further teaches, in Fig. 13 marked up above (Claim 7) wherein the first air layer (labeled) is comprised of a plurality of layers at different levels (1:30 and 7:30 o’clock positions) and (Claim 8) wherein the levels (1:30 and 7:30 o’clock positions) are based on a direction parallel to a width direction (labeled ‘2nd direction’) of the body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is allowed.
Claims 5 and 9 - 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent apparatus Claim 5, prior art fails to teach in combination with the other limitations of the claim, “...wherein a space for air purge and exhaust (dashed line(s) connecting dashed rectangles in Figs. 4 and 7 - 9) is formed inside the body, and the first air layer (310) is provided in an upper portion of the space.”
Regarding dependent apparatus Claim 9, prior art fails to teach in combination with the other limitations of the claim, “…wherein a space for air purge and exhaust (dashed line(s) connecting dashed rectangles in Figs. 4 and 7 - 9) is formed inside the body and comprises a first space (410), a second space (420) connected to the first space (410) and disposed above the first space (410), a third space (430) connected to the second space (420) and disposed above the second space (420) and a fourth space (440) connected to the third space (430) and disposed on sides of the third space (430), and the second air layer (320) is provided at the same level as the fourth space (440 – best seen in Figs. 7 - 9).” Claims 10 – 14 depend from Claim 9 and are in condition for allowance for the same reasons.
Regarding independent apparatus Claim 15, prior art fails to teach in combination with the other limitations of the claim, “…a body … having a space for air purge and exhaust (dashed line(s) connecting dashed rectangles in Figs. 4 and 7 - 9); …wherein the space for air purge and exhaust comprises a first space (410), a second space (420) connected to the first space (410) and disposed above the first space (410), a third space (430) connected to the second space (420) and disposed above the second space (420) and a fourth space (440) connected to the third space (430) and disposed on sides of the third space (430), the first air layer (310) is provided above the third space (430) and the fourth space (440), and the second air layer (320) is provided at the same level as the fourth space (440) but is separated from the fourth space (440 – best seen in Figs. 7 - 9).”
Regarding Claim 15, the closest prior art Kim teaches, in Figs. 1 - 17, the invention as claimed including a substrate (W – Figs. 1, 7, 12, 14, and 15) treating apparatus comprising: a housing (walls shown in Figs. 3 and 5 defining each “baking unit 420 or 800” comprising “cooling plate 820 or 830” and “heating unit 1000”) providing a space in which a substrate (W – Col. 7, ll. 55 - 60) is treated; a heating unit (1000 - Col. 8, ll. 1 – 25, structure recited below knocks out 112(f) interpretation.) disposed in the housing and heating the substrate (W); a cooling unit (As discussed in the ‘Claim Interpretation’ section above, “cooling unit” invokes 112(f) interpretation and the broadest reasonable interpretation is “cooling plate 820” in Col. 8, ll. 1 – 10 but labeled as ‘830’ in Figs. 3 and 5.) disposed in the housing and cooling the substrate; and a transfer unit (As discussed in the ‘Claim Interpretation’ section above, “transfer unit” invokes 112(f) interpretation and the broadest reasonable interpretation is 432 – robot, Col. 7, ll. 15 – 20.) for moving the substrate, wherein the heating unit (1000) comprises: a body (1300/1320 – Fig. 7) comprising a heater (1400/1420 and 1440); a first air layer (labeled ‘1st air layer’ in Fig. 13 marked up below) provided inside the body (1300/1320 – Fig. 7) for thermal insulation and formed in a first direction (labeled ‘1st direction’ in Fig. 13 marked up below) as a longitudinal direction thereof; and a second air layer (labeled ‘2nd air layer’ in Fig. 13 marked up below) provided inside the body (1300/1320 – Fig. 7) for thermal insulation and formed in a second direction (labeled ‘2nd direction’ in Fig. 13 marked up below) as a longitudinal direction thereof. Kim teaches, in the Abstract, “… a buffer space for restricting a heat transfer rate of heat provided from the heating member to the upper surface is formed. The buffer space insulates a central area and a peripheral area, thereby maximizing a temperature difference between the central area and the peripheral area”. Kim is silent on said heater being “a heater therein”, interpreted as said heater being inside the body.
PNG
media_image1.png
798
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hiromichi teaches, in Figs. 5 and 6, a similar heating unit having a body (13 and 14) comprising a heater (11) therein, i.e., located inside the body. Hiromichi teaches, in Para. [0029], “In the figure, the heating stage 10 comprises a lower stage 13 and an upper stage 14 which are formed of a good conductor of heat. The lower stage 13 is provided with a heater 11 capable of heating a region corresponding to the area of the substrate 7”.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with the heater located inside the body, taught by Hiromichi, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the heating unit having a body comprising a first air layer provided inside the body for thermal insulation and formed in a first direction as a longitudinal direction thereof; and a second air layer provided inside the body for thermal insulation and formed in a second direction as a longitudinal direction thereof, and a heater located inside the body, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the heater location, taught by Hiromichi, for the heater location of Kim, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the heater located inside the body would have heated up the inside of said body when electricity was supplied to said heater. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
The combination of Kim, i.v., Hiromichi, does not teach said body having a space for air purge and exhaust; …wherein the space for air purge and exhaust comprises a first space, a second space connected to the first space and disposed above the first space, a third space connected to the second space and disposed above the second space and a fourth space connected to the third space and disposed on sides of the third space, the first air layer is provided above the third space and the fourth space, and the second air layer is provided at the same level as the fourth space but is separated from the fourth space.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNE E MEADE whose telephone number is (571)270-7570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741