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. New claims 19-20 have been added and are dependent on claim 1.
Claims 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
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 and 19-20 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.
As presently amended, claim 1 now recites “wherein a first wall between one of the plurality of modules and the carry chamber and a second wall between another one of the plurality of modules…”. Amended claim 1 also now recites “at least one of the plurality of modules”. It appears that modules in the former recitation necessarily include the at least one module of the plurality of modules. Thus, in order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to recite “wherein a first wall between the at least one of the plurality of modules and the carry chamber and a second wall between another one of the plurality of modules…” or similar and has examined accordingly.
Claim 1 includes the limitation “a piping arrangement on a lateral of the carry chamber and adjacent to the module”. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim is meant to refer to “a piping arrangement on a lateral of the carry chamber and adjacent to the at least one module of the plurality of modules” and has examined accordingly.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the limitation “the piping arrangement region in which the exhaust pipe is arranged”. Thus, claim 1 and claim 11 limitations “when the exhaust pipe is disposed in the piping arrangement region” is at best unclear. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim limitation “when the exhaust pipe is disposed in the piping arrangement region” was meant to be deleted and has examined accordingly. It also appears that only one of the exhaust pipe or the supply pipe is disposed in the piping arrangement based on the cross-flow nature of the disclosed invention. Thus, claim 1 recitation regarding the optional arrangement of the supply pipe disposed in the piping arrangement region in combination with the claim 1 required arrangement of the exhaust pipe arranged in the piping arrangement region is at best unclear, as well.
Claim 15 refers to each module of the plurality of modules. See above, wherein claim 1 now considered to recite “wherein a first wall between the at least one of the plurality of modules and the carry chamber and a second wall between another one of the plurality of modules…”. The walls and modules of claim 1 and walls and modules of claim 15 seem to be the same modules and walls. Thus, in order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed claim 15 was meant to recite “wherein the first wall of the at least one module of the plurality of modules and the second wall of the another one of the plurality of modules are oblique walls and the first wall and the second wall adjacently form a concave portion so as to form the predetermined angle; and a protrusion of the carry chamber is configured to be fitted into the concave portion” or similar 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. Additionally, Applicant should independently confirm their understanding of the claimed and disclosed inventions with Examiner’s assumptions, as Examiner’s assumptions are just that and therefore are not meant to alter the originally disclosed invention in any way.
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) 1-11, 13-15 and 19-20 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 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 (portions of 210 separating holes in 44A and 44B) and distributor (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 and on a shaft (center vertical axis/direction of 10A, 10B) 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 (note: no particular “lateral” is defined) of the carry chamber and adjacent to the module, the piping arrangement region being a region in which the exhaust pipe is arranged, and wherein the gas supplier is disposed at a position oblique to the shaft and not overlapping the carrier chamber (in at least some directions).
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.
Additionally, in modified Kamimura et al., Thakur et al. disclose in Figure 2A, a plurality of modules (see, e.g., Fig. 2B and paras. 59-60) at positions 114A-D, wherein positions 114C and 114D provide at least one module (e.g., at 114C) and another module (e.g., at 114B), wherein a first wall (111C) between the at least one of the plurality of modules and a carry chamber (110) and a second wall (111B) between another one of the plurality of modules, which is adjacent to the at least one of the plurality of modules, and the carry chamber have a predetermined angle less than 180 degrees. Thakur et al. also teach that the one or more batch chambers can be positioned at any one of positions 114A-D. Examiner acknowledges that Thakur et al. fails to explicitly disclose the angle between the first side and the second side as less than 180 degrees. However, the illustration clearly illustrates a polygon, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand them to meet the inequality.
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/exhaust housing (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) is connected to a supply pipe (e.g., 203) on an upstream side, and the distributor/gas discharger and the exhaust structure/housing 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/housing has a structure (connecting structures including 353) continuous with the ceiling of the downstream gas guide, and bottom of the exhaust structure/housing 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 structure/housing is configured as an exhaust buffer structure having no 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 a gas supplier includes a distributor (210) including a nozzle (208) serving as a gas discharger inside the chamber; and a distance from an edge of a substrate (that may be processed in the apparatus as an article worked upon) to a connection position of an exhaust pipe (connected to pump 171 outside the module) is configured to become longer than a distance from at tip of the gas discharger to the edge of the substrate (see, e.g., Figs. 2G and 9 of Thakur et al. and Kamimura et al. wherein the exhaust pipe is provided outside the module). Examiner also notes that the courts have ruled that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
With respect to claim 10, in modified Kamimura et al., Thakur et al. disclose the exhaust pipe is provided laterally (e.g., at a side of) to the exhaust structure/housing (see, e.g., Figs. 2G and 9).
With respect to claim 11, 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 and extend laterally from the carry chamber.
With respect to claims 13, in modified Kamimura et al., Kamimura et al. at least disclose a carry chamber side of the piping arrangement regions is open to the carry chamber (via the at least one module and another module).
With respect to claim 14, in modified Kamimura et al., Kamimura et al. at least disclose the piping arrangement region (and features thereof) is configured to be adjacent to the carry chamber (see, e.g., Fig. 5 wherein a supply pipe/gas supplier is arranged adjacent to the carry chamber).
With respect to claim 15, in modified Kamimura et al., Thakur et al. disclose, e.g., in Figs. 2A-B, the first wall of the at least one module of the plurality of modules and the second wall of the another one of the plurality of modules are oblique walls and the first wall and the second wall adjacently form a concave portion so as to form the predetermined angle; and a protrusion of the carry chamber is configured to be fitted into the concave portion 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 (also see, e.g., paras. 59-60).
With respect to claim 19, in modified Kamimura et al., the predetermined angle is obtuse as described above. See, description provided above.
With respect to claim to claim 20, modified Kamimura et al. fail to explicitly disclose the carry chamber is formed in a pentagonal shape. However, the courts have ruled where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); and additionally, those of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic are aware that the number of side of a carry chamber in a cluster tool can be provided based on processing needs and the courts have held that selections of shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
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, 13-15 and 19-20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-11, 13-15 and 19-20 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
See above modified rejection of claim 1 of amended claim 1 which addresses the amended claims.
Examiner also notes that although has provided “arguments”, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. In particular, Applicant has not pointed to any particular claim limitation that has not been addressed or how the combination of references fail to address any specific claim limitation, nor has Applicant specifically addressed the motivations for combination they have deemed improper.
To advance examination, Examiner suggests clarifying all claim language in line with 35 USC 112b and incorporating claim 12 into claim 1 to more clearly set forth the overall organization of the apparatus with respect to the at least one module of the plurality of modules (with reaction tube), the another module, piping arrangement region including housing with lower part and upper part, exhausting pipe and carry chamber.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s request for an interview. See below for instructions on scheduling an interview. It is considered that the present office action will beneficial for expediting the examination process and facilitating any interview Applicant schedules.
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.
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