DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on January 7, 2026, has been entered.
Claims 17, 25, and 36 are amended; claims 18-22 and 33-34 are canceled.
The applicant contends:
(1) The prior art does not disclose the new material presently recited by independent claim 17 – namely, a loading support whose support end is “provided as a plate.” Although the Office has cited Hou to address the feature of the loading support, the corresponding support ends have “sharp or point like tips, as illustrated in Figures 6 and 7…These lift pins are configured to contact the substrate at discrete points” (p. 10).
(2) Hou does not disclose the claimed feature of substrate holder recesses, as the upper surface of the susceptor is flat (p. 11).
(3) The Office asserts that it would have been obvious to incorporate static loading supports into Chang based on a finite number of predictable solutions, but this reasoning does not satisfy the requirements articulated in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex (p. 11).
(4) Hou’s lift pins are “not disclosed as fixed structural supports defining loading and processing positions in cooperation with vertical movement of a substrate support” (p. 11). Further, Hou’s loading support does not extend from a bottom wall nor does the support fit within a through-hole provided in a substrate holder recess (p. 12).
In response,
(1) The examiner cannot find support for Applicant’s assertion that Hou’s support ends are “point like tips.” To the contrary, the examiner understands Hou to provide adequate warrant for the conclusion that said support ends are, in fact, plate-like. With regard to Figures 5 and 6, the diameter of the loading support (671) widens at the terminus which contacts the substrate. More dispositively, Figures 8-12 limn the shape of the support end (871) in plan view. As shown, the terminus of the support end is circular with a distinct diameter, quite dissimilar to a “point like tip.” In view of the preceding, the examiner believes one of ordinary skill would interpret Hou as disclosing a loading support whose support end widens into a circular, plate-like dimension.
(2) The examiner concurs but observes that Chang already discloses this very feature. Hou, in turn, is relied upon narrowly to demonstrate the suitability of using a loading support to separate a substrate from the susceptor. As such, the fact that Hou does not teach the feature of recesses does not bear upon the integrity of the combination rejection.
(3) The examiner notes that this obviousness rationale – “choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success” – was taken from the KSR decision verbatim.
(4) The examiner disagrees, as Hou expressly contemplates an embodiment in which “lift pins 110 and 150 remain fixed while the susceptor is lowered” [0005]. This operation clearly reads upon the claimed act of moving the substrate support while maintaining the loading support “static and fixed.”
Separately, as integrated within Chang’s apparatus, the loading supports would extend from the bottom wall and would necessarily extend through the recesses formed within Chang’s substrate support, as it is these recesses which accommodate the substrate that the loading supports are configured to elevate.
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.
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) because the claim limitations use generic placeholders – “mechanism” and “device,” in this case – 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 limitations are:
The “moving mechanism” of claims 17 and 35;
The “rotating device” of claim 17;
The “transfer device” of claim 17;
The “loading device” of claims 25 and 36.
The “rotating mechanism” of claim 35;
The “transfer mechanism” of claim 35.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The moving mechanism is not adequately defined by Applicant’s specification, thereby prompting 112 rejections, below.
The rotating device (64) will be interpreted as a rotating motor in accordance with paragraph [0140] of Applicant’s specification.
The transfer device is not adequately defined by Applicant’s specification, thereby prompting 112 rejections, below.
The loading device (100) will be interpreted as a robot in accordance with paragraph [0179].
The rotating and transfer mechanisms will be interpreted as synonyms for the rotating and transfer devices, respectively.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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 them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 17 and its dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 17 recites the feature of a “transfer device,” which is a nonce term subject to interpretation under 112(f). However, all recitations of “transfer device” in the specification fail to describe the specific structure for performing the function of “mov[ing] the substrate support in the moving direction,” as claim 17 recites. Without any disclosure of structure, materials, or acts for performing the enumerated function, one cannot conclude that the inventor was in a possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 17 and its dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 17 recites the feature of a “moving mechanism,” which is being interpreted as a generic placeholder under 112(f). The claim, however, proceeds to define “moving mechanism” by reference to two other generic placeholders: “rotating device” and “transfer device.” Because a generic placeholder lacks content, it cannot structurally define another placeholder, by logical definition. Thus, since “moving mechanism” is improperly defined, its metes are necessarily unknown, and the limitation is thereby indefinite. To expedite prosecution, the examiner will provisionally accept the prior art disclosure of a device capable of actuating a substrate support rotationally and vertically as satisfying the contested limitation.
Separately, claim 17 recites the feature of a “transfer device,” which is a generic placeholder subject to interpretation under 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function of “mov[ing] the substrate support in the moving direction.” Because “transfer device” lacks a specific structure, the metes of this feature are indeterminate. As such, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 112(b). In the interests of compact prosecution, the examiner will provisionally accept the prior art disclosure of a device capable of vertical actuation as satisfying the contested limitation
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. This claim attempts to define a nonce term under 112(f) interpretation, “moving mechanism,” by reference to two other nonce terms, “rotating mechanism” and “transfer mechanism.” Because a nonce term lacks content, it cannot be relied upon to define the structure of another nonce term. Thus, because neither “transfer mechanism” nor “rotating mechanism” are capable of defining “moving mechanism,” the metes of the latter term are indefinite. To advance prosecution, the examiner will provisionally accept the prior art disclosure of a device capable of vertically and rotationally actuating a substrate support as satisfying the contested limitation.
Separately, the examiner observes that claim 17, from which claim 35 depends, already recites the features of a “rotating device” and a “transfer device.” Applicant’s specification appears to use “device” and “mechanism” interchangeably, meaning that “rotating mechanism” and “rotating device” denote the same structural feature, as does “transfer device” and “transfer mechanism.” Claim 35, then, overdetermines the invention by according multiple titles to the same feature. Correction is required. To advance prosecution, the examiner will consider the prior art rejection of claim 17 to apply to claim 35, given that the latter claim does not materially limit the former.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 17 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al., US 2020/0017969, in view of Hou et al., US 2004/0096636.
Claim 17: Chang discloses an atomic layer deposition apparatus, comprising:
A process chamber (110) (Fig. 1);
A substrate support (104) having a support surface and arranged to support one or more substrates (50) [0017];
A precursor supply head (106) having an output face (106S) via which precursors are supplied [0020];
Wherein the support surface and output face are arranged opposite each other to form a reaction gap (Fig. 1);
A moving mechanism, comprising:
A rotating device (116), i.e., a first motor, that rotates the substrate support relative to the precursor supply head [0019];
A transfer device (116), i.e., a second motor, that moves the substrates support in a vertical direction to adjust the reaction gap [0019];
A rotation axis (114) connected to the substrate support and extending perpendicularly therefrom [0019];
Wherein the rotating and transfer devices are operatively connected to the rotation axis;
Wherein the substrate support (104) has substrate holders (112) formed as recesses provided on the support surface for receiving a substrate (50) [0042].
Chang does not address the feature of a “loading support,” although some lift pin mechanism is necessarily implied in order to separate the substrates (50) from the susceptor to permit access by the transfer robot. Hou, then, is cited for the description of a means by which to separate the substrates from a supporting susceptor. As shown by Figures 1, Hou discusses an embodiment in which lift pins (110, 150), i.e., “loading supports,” in the language of claim 17, move via through-holes extending through the susceptor (166) to separate the substrate (160), thereby allowing collection by a transfer robot. Two techniques are contemplated: one in which the lift pins elevate through a stationary susceptor, and another in which the lift pins are fixed while the susceptor moves vertically [0005]. Given that Chang already teaches a vertically movable susceptor, it seems the second embodiment comprising fixed loading supports would be most apt. Thus, it would have been obvious to incorporate static loading supports within Chang’s apparatus to facilitate separation of the substrate from the susceptor, as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within the scope of ordinary skill. An operator can control the apparatus to raise and lower susceptor in relation to the fixed loading supports, whereby the raised orientation may be designated as the “process position,” and the lowered orientation may be designated as the “loading position.”
Lastly, regarding the new material, Figure 6 of Hou depicts the loading support (671) as comprising a support rod extending vertically, and a support end having an end surface for bearing the substrate (665). As shown, the diameter of the support end widens relative to that of the support rod and appears to be formed as a plate. Hou’s disclosure necessarily evidences that a loading support of this configuration is suitable for the task of separating and bearing a substrate; thus, it would have been obvious to adopt this particular design since a mere change in the shape of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Dailey, MPEP 2144.04; 357 F.2nd 669; 149 USPQ 1966).
Claim 35: It appears that the “rotating mechanism” recited by this claim is commensurate with the already claimed “rotating device” of claim 17, and the “transfer mechanism” is commensurate with the already claimed “transfer device.”
Claims 25 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Hou, and in further view of Tsuji et al., US 2011/0226178.
Chang is silent regarding the claimed feature of a loading device. In supplementation, Tsuji discloses an ALD device of analogous structure, yet further describes a transportation opening (15) through which a robot arm (101) conveys a substrate to and from the processing chamber ([0061]; Figs. 1, 3). It would have been obvious to avail a robot arm, i.e., the “loading device,” to achieve the predictable result of enabling automated substrate transfer.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Antonissen, US 2006/0073276. Antonissen discloses an ALD apparatus comprising a substrate support (110), a precursor supply head (100) having an output face opposed to the substrate support, and a moving mechanism (130) capable of rotating the substrate support relative to the supply head ([0041-42]; Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. 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.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716