DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
The restriction requirement between claims 1-16 and 17-20, as set forth in the Office action mailed on March 25, 2025, is withdrawn because the claims have been amended
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:
heat transfer element in claims 1 and 12;
lift mechanism in claim 10.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites a substrate in lines 2 and 6. It is unclear if these two recitations are different substrates or should the second refer to the first? Clarification is requested. Recitations of “a substrate” are also found in claims 2-3, 6 and 19.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the processing chamber" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. for purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted to refer to the chamber of claim 1.
Claim 12 recites a substrate in lines 2 and 4. It is unclear if these two recitations are different substrates or should the second refer to the first? Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawaguchi (US 20090014324).
In regards to claims 1 and 8, Kawaguchi teaches load lock chamber (122) comprising:
a plurality of substrate holders (204/206, stack holders) which supports a substrate, each of the substrate holders comprise a standoff (308, 310) with a curved inner portion (304/306) (fig. 2-3; para. 30, 38-39);
a pedestal (240) is connected to a heat transfer elements (286, 290) to regulate the temperature of the substrate supported on the substrate holders, where a hoop (220) is adjacent to the pedestal, and the hoop supports the plurality of substrate holders (fig. 2-3; para. 30, 38, 40-43).
In regards to claim 2, Kawaguchi teaches a transfer chamber (136) with a transfer robot (130), the transfer robot transfers the substrate from the transfer chamber to the substrate holders of the load lock chamber (fig. 2; para. 23-26)
In regards to claim 3, Kawaguchi teaches a factory interface (102) with a factory interface robot (114),
where the load lock chamber is between the transfer chamber and the factory interface,
the factory interface robot transfers the substrate from the factory interface to the plurality of substrate holders of the load lock chamber (fig. 2; para. 23-26).
In regards to claim 4, Kawaguchi teaches each of the substrate holders have a lip (314, support member), that extends laterally from the curved inner portion (fig. 2-3; para. 39).
In regards to claim 6, Kawaguchi teaches a heater module (270) and the plurality of substrate holders is between the heater module and the pedestal the hoop, and each of the substrate holders have a lip (314, holder) to support the substrate (fig. 2-4; para. 30, 39).
In regards to claim 7, Kawaguchi teaches a vent passage (230) and a pump passage (232, exhaust passage) and capable of the function of forming an laminar flow (fig. 2; para. 30-31).
In regards to claim 10, Kawaguchi teaches
a hoop (220, support) connected to a shaft (282) that extends through a bottom of the load lock chamber, the plurality of substrate holders is connected to the hoop; and
a lift mechanism is connected to the shaft, the lift mechanism is positioned exterior of the load lock chamber, the lift mechanism controls the elevation of the plurality of substrate holders (fig. 2-3; para. 36).
In regards to claims 12 and 14, Kawaguchi teaches a load lock chamber (122) comprising:
a plurality of substrate holders (204/206, stack holders) which supports a substrate, each of the substrate holders comprise a plurality of standoffs (308, 310) on opposing side, each standoff has a curved inner portion (304/306) (fig. 2-3; para. 30, 38-39);
a pedestal (240) is connected to a heat transfer elements (286/290) to regulate the temperature of the substrate supported on a lip (314, holder) of the substrate holders, the pedestal is connected to a bottom of the load lock chamber and the heat transfer elements (286/290 provide supply and return tubing which allow for circulation of a fluid from a fluid source (294) (fig. 2-4; para. 30, 38, 40-43).
In regards to claim 16, Kawaguchi teaches the fluid from the fluid source is used to cool the substrate (fig. 2; para. 43).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi as applied to claims 1-4, 6-8, 12, 14 and 16 above, and further in view of Madsen (US 2016/0358808).
In regards to claim 9, Kawaguchi as discussed, but does not explicitly teach the plurality of stacked holders are each configured to support a carrier that supports the respective substrate, and the carrier is made of a ceramic material.
However, Madsen teaches carrier ring (201) made of a ceramic material, that is used to support a wafer. Madsen teaches the use of the carrier ring to contact the indexer prevents non-uniformities from developing (fig. 2; para. 42-43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the carrier ring to support the wafer of Madsen onto the apparatus of Kawaguchi because Madsen teaches it will aid in prevent non-uniformities.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi as applied to claims 1-4, 6-8, 12, 14 and 16 above, and further in view of Ha (US 2019/0035671).
In regards to claim 11, Kawaguchi as discussed, but does not explicitly teach the heat transfer element is sealed into the pedestal using a circular metallic over plate.
However, Ha teaches a supporting unit (200) comprising a dielectric plate (211), an insulating plate (215), and a grounding plate (216). Ha teaches the insulating plate comprises aa plurality of cooling flow passages (211b) to provide rapid cooling of the substrate. Ha teaches the ground plate electrically insulates (characteristic of metal) the insulating plate from the chamber body (110) (fig. 2; para. 46, 54-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the insulating plate and grounding plate of Ha onto the pedestal of Kawaguchi because Ha teaches it will provide rapid cooling after heating (para. 55).
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi as applied to claims 1-4, 6-8, 12, 14 and 16 above.
In regards to claims 13 and 15, Kawaguchi as discussed to teach the pedestal is centrally positioned within the chamber, but does not explicitly teach a distance between an upper surface of the pedestal and a lower surface of a carrier supported by one of the holders is about 0.75 inches and the standoff and the second standoff are separated by a pitch of about 1 inch.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to size the distance between an upper surface of the pedestal and a lower surface of a carrier supported by one of the holders is about 0.75 inches along with the standoff and the second standoff are separated by a pitch of about 1 inch, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP-2144.05-II-A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,755,955. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader than, and thus inclusive of, the limitations of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,755,955.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights