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 Invention I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 28 October 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the aforementioned reply filed. Note: Although, Applicant indicates claims 1-18 as readable on Invention I, claims 16-17 were listed as separate inventions in the requirement. Additionally, Applicant has elected the Invention I without traverse and no reasoning for listing claims 1-18 as readable on Invention I has been provided. Thus, the grouping of claims with respect to Inventions I-III remains.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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 supply structure which has been interpreted as distributor/gas discharger/nozzle and equivalents thereof as set forth, e.g., in the specification at para. 53; claim 1 exhaust structure which has been interpreted as a housing and equivalents thereof as set forth, e.g., in the specification at para. 37.
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(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 1-15 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 recites a gas supply structure and a gas supplier. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed they are meant to refer to the same feature and has examined accordingly.
Claim 1 refers to “a module” and “a plurality of the modules” without ever clearly claiming a plurality of modules. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed claim was meant to include an explicit recitation of “a plurality of modules” as part of the substrate processing apparatus, and then recite “at least one module of the plurality of modules including a gas supplier”, followed by a recitation of “a carry chamber adjacent to the plurality of modules” and has examined accordingly.
Claim 1 includes the recitation “the piping arrangement region in which the supply pipe or the exhaust pipe can be arranged (emphasis added).” This wording fails to clarify whether or not either of the supply pipe or the exhaust pipe is actually arranged therein and how to interpret the rest of the claim, if not. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the recitation was meant to recite “the piping arrangement region in which the supply pipe or the exhaust pipe is arranged (emphasis added).” and has examined accordingly.
Claim 5 recites the gas supplier includes “a distributor” that appears to also correspond to previously claimed “supply structure”. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that the features are one and the same and has examined accordingly.
Claim 5 recites “a gas supply pipe” this appears to correspond to the previously claimed “supply pipe”. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that the features are one and the same and has examined accordingly.
Claim 6 mentions “a boat supporting a plurality of substrates” but does not clearly and positively recite the same. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant clearly recite the apparatus further comprises “a boat supporting a plurality of substrates” and has examined accordingly.
Claim 8 recites “a plurality of division plates” and then “the division plate”. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the latter recitation was meant to read “the plurality of division plates are configured” and has examined accordingly.
Claim 9 recites the gas supplier includes “a discharger” that appears to correspond to previously claimed “supply structure”. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that the features are one and the same and has examined accordingly.
Claim 11 recites “each of the supply pipes”. First, claim 1 does not require “supply pipes”, such that there is a lack of antecedent basis. Examiner assumes the claim was meant to refer to “the supply pipe”. Second, it is entirely unclear what feature or relationship each of the recitations “each of the supply pipes extends toward laterally from the carry chamber” and “each of the exhaust pipes extends toward laterally from the carry chamber” is meant to describe. Nevertheless, in order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that the carry chamber and the piping arrangement region are at least arranged in the vicinity of one another.
With respect to claim 12, it is unclear to which feature or features “; is adjacent to the reaction tube storage chamber in an upper part of the housing, and is adjacent to the carry chamber in a lower part of the housing;” claim limitation is meant to refer. Examiner is not able to guess or assume what is intended to be claimed.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the carry chamber side is configured to be released in the piping arrangement region”. First, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the carry chamber side”. Second, it is entirely unclear what feature or relationship the recitation “wherein the carry chamber side is configured to be released in the piping arrangement region” is meant to describe. In both instances, Examiner is not sure what is intended to be claimed. Nevertheless, in order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that the carry chamber and the piping arrangement region are at least arranged in the vicinity of one another.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the piping arrangement region is configured to be adjacent via the carry chamber”. It is entirely unclear what feature or relationship the recitation “wherein the piping arrangement region is configured to be adjacent via the carry chamber” is meant to describe. Examiner is not sure what is intended to be claimed. Nevertheless, in order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that the carry chamber and the piping arrangement region are at least arranged in the vicinity of one another.
With respect to claim 15, in order to overcome clarity issues and expedite examination of claim 1, Examiner has previously assumed the substrate processing apparatus is meant to include a plurality of modules. Therefore, Examiner has assumed that claim 15 is meant to recite “each module of the plurality of modules includes an oblique wall, wherein the oblique wall of each module of the plurality of modules adjacently form a concave portion so as to form an obtuse angle; and a protrusion of the carry chamber is configured to be fitted into the concave portion” and has examined accordingly.
Clarification and/or correction is requested in all instances mentioned above. Examiner has made a best effort to address all deficiencies with respect to 35 USC 112, para. b. However, Examiner respectfully requests Applicant and Applicant’s Attorneys cooperation in bringing the current claim set (and any future claim sets) in compliance with current US practice and general English grammar standards to allow for a thorough, complete and expedited examination.
Additional Claim Interpretation
“Shaft” has not been interpreted as an actual structure, as the term most often suggests, rather an “imaginary” line or axis extending in a particular direction as claimed, as disclosed in the specification at, e.g., para. 10..
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) 1-3, 5-11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0198359 to Kamimura et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0210937 to Thakur et al.
Regarding claim 1: Kamimura et al. disclose a substrate processing apparatus substantially as claimed and comprising: a plurality of processing modules (Fig. 1-5, 4A and 4B), wherein at least one module of the plurality of modules includes a gas supplier having an upstream gas guide (holes in 44A and 44B) and a supply structure/distributor/gas discharger (44A and 44B), a reaction tube (10A and 10B) communication with the gas supplier, and a gas exhauster (e.g. opening of 46A) provided at a position opposing the upstream side gas guide; a supply pipe (36A and 36B) connected to the gas supplier, and an exhaust pipe (46A) connected to the gas exhauster, wherein the reaction tube is disposed at a position overlapping the carry chamber on a shaft (axis/direction) of the substrate processing apparatus; a carry chamber (8) adjacent to the plurality of modules; and a piping arrangement region (e.g., regions housing at least 46A and 46B) on a lateral side (note: no particular lateral direction is defined) of the carry chamber and adjacent to the module, the piping arrangement region being a region in which the supply pipe or the exhaust pipe is arranged, wherein when the supply pipe is disposed in the piping arrangement region, the gas exhauster is disposed at a position oblique to the shaft and not overlapping the carrying chamber (along a line horizontal to S.sub.1, the line passing through the center of the reaction tube when viewed in the cross-section of the substrate processing apparatus illustrated in Fig. 5); and wherein when the exhaust pipe is disposed in the piping arrangement area, the gas supplier area, the gas supplier is disposed at a position oblique to the shaft and not overlapping the carrier chamber.
However, Kamimura et al. fail to disclose the gas exhauster having a downstream gas guide and an exhaust structure/housing.
Within the art and in a similar batch processing module, Thakur et al. disclose a gas exhauster provided at a position opposing an upstream gas guide, the gas exhauster having a downstream gas guide (e.g., Fig. 9, 352) and an exhaust structure/housing (351) for the purpose of providing a parallel process gas flow allowing for rapid saturation of a substrate processing surface and thus reduced processing time (see, e.g., paras. 103-109 and 131).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided, in modified Kamimura et al., a gas exhauster provided at a position opposing an upstream gas guide, the gas exhauster having a downstream gas guide and an exhaust structure/housing in order to provide a parallel process gas flow allowing for rapid saturation of a substrate processing surface and thus reduced processing time as taught by Thakur et al.
With respect to claim 2, modified Kamimura et al. disclose the apparatus substantially as disclosed and as described above, wherein the apparatus of Kamimura et al. further comprises a transfer chamber (6A and 6B) disposed below the reaction tube and configured to communicate with the carry chamber.
However, modified Kamimura et al. fail to disclose the carry chamber is a vacuum carry chamber; and a transfer chamber exhaust system/exhaust pipe that is capable of bringing an atmosphere of the transfer chamber into a vacuum state connected thereto.
Thakur et al. disclose a multi-chamber processing system apparatus comprising a vacuum carry chamber (Fig. 2A, 110); and a transfer chamber exhaust system/exhaust pipe (Fig. 2G, 171) that is capable of bringing an atmosphere of a transfer chamber into a vacuum state connected thereto for the purpose of providing a multi-chamber processing with increased throughput (see, e.g., abstract and paras. 57 and 95).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided modified Kamimura et al. further having a vacuum carry chamber (Fig. 2A, 110); and a transfer chamber exhaust system/exhaust pipe (Fig. 2G, 171) that is capable of bringing an atmosphere of a transfer chamber into a vacuum state connected thereto for the purpose of providing a multi-chamber processing with increased system throughput as taught by Thakur et al.
With respect to claim 3, in modified Kamimura et al., Thakur et al. disclose the downstream gas guide (352) is configured to be adjacent to a reaction tube (110b), and the gas exhaust structure (351) is configured to be downstream of the downstream gas guide (see, e.g., Fig. 9).
With respect to claim 5, in modified Kamimura et al., Thakur et al. disclose a gas supplier includes a distributor/gas discharger (210) to which a gas supply pipe (e.g., 203) is connected on an upstream side, and the distributor and the exhaust structure are provided to oppose each other (see, e.g., Fig. 9).
With respect to claim 6, in modified Kamimura et al., Thakur et al. disclose a ceiling of the downstream gas guide (e.g. top of uppermost 354) is configured to become higher than a substrate (that may be) disposed uppermost in a boat (46) supporting a plurality of substrates, a bottom (e.g. bottom of bottommost 354) is configured to be lower than a substrate (that may be) disposed lowermost in the boat, a ceiling of the exhaust structure has a structure (connecting structures including 353) continuous with the ceiling of the downstream gas guide, and bottom of the exhaust structure has a structure (connecting structures including 353) continuous with the bottom of the downstream side gas guide.
With respect to claim 7, in modified Kamimura et al., Thakur et al. disclose the downstream gas guide has a plurality of division plates (portions between holes 354) arranged in a vertical direction, and the exhaust buffer is configured as an exhaust buffer structure having not obstacle from a ceiling to the bottom.
With respect to claim 8, in modified Kamimura et al., Thakur et al. disclose the downstream gas guide has a plurality of division plates (portions between holes 354), and the plurality of division plates are configured to extend in a horizontal direction in a direction opposing the substrate.
With respect to claim 9, in modified Kamimura et al., Thakur et al. disclose the gas supplier includes a distributor/gas discharger (210); and a distance from an edge of a substrate (that may be processed in the apparatus) to a connection position of the exhaust pipe is configured to become longer than a distance from at tip of the gas discharger to the edge of the substrate (see, e.g., Fig. 9 of Thakur et al. and Kamimura et al. wherein he exhaust pipe is provided outside the module.
With respect to claim 10, in modified Kamimura et al., Kamimura et al. disclose the exhaust pipe is provided laterally to the exhaust structure (see, e.g., Fig. 5).
With respect to claims 11 and 13-14, in modified Kamimura et al., Kamimura et al. at least disclose that the carry chamber and the piping arrangement region (and features thereof) are at least arranged in the vicinity of one another.
With respect to claim 15, in modified Kamimura et al., Thakur et al. disclose in Figure 2A the plurality of modules includes at least some of the plurality of modules (e.g., 114A and 114B) include an oblique wall, the oblique wall of each of the at least some of the plurality of modules from a concave portion so as to form an obtuse angle; and a protrusion of the carry chamber is configured to be fitted into the concave portion (see, e.g., Fig. 2B).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Kamimura et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-15 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0307415 to Shero et al.
Modified Kamimura et al. disclose the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Kamimura et al. fail to disclose the downstream gas guide is formed of a heat permeable material, and the exhaust structure is formed of metal.
Within the art, Shero et al. teach that is known in the art of gas substrate processing apparatus to those of ordinary skill to use a construction material such as stainless steel (heat permeable [conductive]/metal) for gas introduction and gas exhaust structures such that they will not react with any gases (see, e.g., para. 36).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in modified Kamimura et al. the downstream gas guide is formed of a heat permeable material[conductive]/metal (e.g. stainless steel), and the exhaust structure is formed of [conductive]/metal (e.g. stainless steel) in order to provide structure constructed of a material that will not react with any gases as taught by Shero et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP Pub. 2008/0173238 disclose downstream gas guides made up of separated holes and/or individual and separate partition plates. USP Pub. 2008/0050929 and USP Pub. 2015/0144060 disclose cluster tools with batch processing modules.
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