DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 28 August 2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 112.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “interior volume”, “front panel”, “plurality of gloves”, “plurality of controllers” (including mass flow controller and RF impedance matcher) and “a conduit” must be shown (and numbered/referenced in the drawings) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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: claims 1 and 22: main module which has been interpreted as a base assembly/cube and equivalents thereto as set forth for example at para. 81 in the specification; substrate transfer module which has been interpreted as a load lock and equivalents thereto as set forth for example at para. 84 in the specification; processing module which has been interpreted as a chamber and equivalents thereto as set forth for example at para. 83 in the specification; and a substrate receiver module which has been interpreted as a chuck and equivalents thereto as set forth for example at para. 84 in the specification; claims 1 and 22 filter unit (i.e. unit for filtering) wherein no specific structure was located in the specification for performing the claimed function.
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 the first paragraph 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 11, 13-18, 22 and 42-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As discussed above, “filter unit” in claims 1 and 22 invokes interpretation under U.S.C. 112(f). However, no reference of “filter” in the disclosure details a specific structure to perform the claimed function attributed thereto. Without any disclosure of any structure, materials, or acts for performing the functions or any link of structure to the functions, one cannot conclude that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, the claims (and claims dependent thereon) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In order to expedite examination, the claims are being examined as written as it regards this feature.
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 1-2, 7-8, 11, 13-18, 22 and 42-49 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 their dependence.
Claim 1 and 22 limitation “filter unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Amended independent claim 1 now recites the following: 1) “a plurality of controllers, …, comprising a RF impedance matcher [emphasis added]”; 2) “a conduit comprising an interior volume and fluidically coupled with at least one of the two or more semiconductor process tools”; 3) “at least one of the two or more support modules comprises a gas storage…”. At best, the claim is unclear with respect to the presence and function of a controller as a RF impedance matcher as it relates to further limitations of controllers in the claims. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to recite “a plurality of controllers, positioned proximate the two or more semiconductor process tools, the plurality of controllers comprising a RF impedance matcher and one or more mass flow controllers” and “the at least one of the two or more support modules is fluidically coupled with the one of the semiconductor process tools of the two or more semiconductor process tools and one of the one or more mass flow controllers via the conduit, the fluidic coupling of the at least one support module of the two or more support module with the one of the semiconductor process tools of the two or more semiconductor process tools via the conduit is controlled by the one of the one or more mass flow controllers, and the one of the one or more mass flow controllers is positioned closer to the one of semiconductor process tools of the two or more semiconductor process tools than the at least one of the two or more support modules, thereby minimizing the interior volume of the conduit” and has examined accordingly. Similar issues exist with respect to claim 22, Examiner has made the same assumptions and has examined accordingly.
In the above, Examiner has also corrected a number of issues of lack of antecedent basis to properly clarify the claimed features based how Applicant’s has first introduced features, such as semiconductor process tools, support modules and controllers, wherein if Applicant starts by claiming a group with an open number and then adds limitations pertaining to only some number of the group, the naming must be upheld based on the added limitations for clarity purposes. This convention should be followed throughout the entirety of the claim set.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the one or more support modules” at lines 47-48 thereof. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the limitation was meant to recite “the two or more support modules” and has examined accordingly. In all instances, correction and/or clarification is requested.
Claims 8 recites the limitation “the three or more semiconductor process tools”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the limitation was meant to recite “the two or more semiconductor process tools” and has examined accordingly. In all instances, correction and/or clarification is requested.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the semiconductor process tools”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the limitation was meant to recite “the two or more semiconductor process tools” and has examined accordingly.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a transfer module”. However, the feature is already recited in claim 1. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the limitation was meant to recite “the transfer module of each of the two or more two or more semiconductor process tools” and has examined accordingly.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “at least two of the semiconductor process tools”. However, the feature fails to clearly relate to claim 1. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the limitation was meant to recite “at least two of the two or more semiconductor process tools” and has examined accordingly.
Amended independent claim 22 now recites the following: 1) “a plurality of controllers, …, comprising a RF impedance matcher [emphasis added]”; 2) “a conduit comprising an interior volume and fluidically coupled with at least one of the two or more semiconductor process tools”; 3) “at least one of the two or more support modules comprises a gas storage…”. At best, the claim is unclear with respect to the presence and function of a controller as a RF impedance matcher as it relates to further limitations of controllers in the claims. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to recite “a plurality of controllers, positioned proximate the two or more semiconductor process tools, the plurality of controllers comprising a RF impedance matcher and one or more mass flow controllers” and “the at least one of the two or more support modules is fluidically coupled with the one of the semiconductor process tools of the two or more semiconductor process tools and one of the one or more mass flow controllers via the conduit, the fluidic coupling of the at least one support module of the two or more support module with the one of the semiconductor process tools of the two or more semiconductor process tools via the conduit is controlled by the one of the one or more mass flow controllers, and the one of the one or more mass flow controllers is positioned closer to the one of semiconductor process tools of the two or more semiconductor process tools than the at least one of the two or more support modules, thereby minimizing the interior volume of the conduit” and has examined accordingly.
In the above, Examiner has also corrected a number of issues of lack of antecedent basis to properly clarify the claimed features based how Applicant’s has first introduced features, such as semiconductor process tools, support modules and controllers, wherein if Applicant starts by claiming a group with an open number and then adds limitations pertaining to only some number of the group, the naming must be upheld based on the added limitations for clarity purposes. This convention should be followed throughout the entirety of the claim set.
Claim 44 recites the limitations “the semiconductor process tools” and “at least two of the semiconductor process tools”. However, the features fail to clearly relate to claim 22. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the limitations were meant to recite “each of the two or more semiconductor process tools” and “at least two of the two or more semiconductor process tools”, respectively, and has examined accordingly.
Claim 47 recites the limitation “at least two of the semiconductor process tools”. However, the feature fails to clearly relate to claim 22. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the limitation was meant to recite “at least two of the two or more semiconductor process tools” and has examined accordingly.
Claim 48-49 recite the limitation “one or more of the semiconductor process tools”. However, the feature fails to clearly relate to claim 22. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the limitation was meant to recite “one or more of the two or more semiconductor process tools” and has examined accordingly.
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 47 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 (emphasis added), or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and generic arguments regarding the amended claims as presented have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, various new issues have been created or brought to light based on the amendments. See above objections and rejections. No new prior art rejections have been provided at this time, as, although all individual features of the claimed inventions appear to be known, there does not appear to be a reasonable combination of prior art capable of being elaborated in a proper and fair prior art rejection to address the same. Nevertheless, Examiner also notes that that it is not USPTO practice to indicate allowable subject matter based solely on the presentation of a “picture claim”, let alone a picture claim with issues related to the drawings and 35 USC 112 a, b. MPEP 706: The standards of patentability applied in the examination of claims must be the same throughout the Office. In every art, whether it be considered "complex," "newly developed," "crowded," or "competitive," all of the requirements for patentability (e.g., patent eligible, useful, novel, nonobvious, enabled, and clearly described as provided in 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112 ) must be met before a claim is allowed. The mere fact that a claim recites in detail all of the features of an invention (i.e., is a "picture" claim) is never, in itself, justification for the allowance of such a claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. 7,513,822, with respect to the filter unit, discloses an apparatus wherein “Floor 126 of the cleanroom (see FIG. 1B) can be raised and perforated, to permit air flow to originate at the ceiling 120 and exhaust through the floor. The cleanroom ceiling can contain space 121 (FIG. 1B) for utilities (e.g., fans or ducts) to originate an air flow which passes through ceiling-suspended HEPA filtration systems 120 to provide a clean air flow through cleanroom space 124.”
US Patent No. 6,277,199, with respect to plurality of controllers, discloses “ For the purpose of controlling and optionally containing the gas supplies, it is desirable to have a common area or enclosure referred to as a gas panel or gas box for isolating control valves, safety shut off valves, actuators, mass flow controllers, associated electronics and the like. The gas box typically sits immediately adjacent to a group of processing chambers, such as adjacent to the chambers attached to a cluster tool, with one side facing the chambers through which each supply line passes. Each gas supply line will have at least one control valve and at least one coupling for connecting a supply line to a chamber.”
USP 6,099,599, with respect to the overall arrangement of the system discloses “One exemplified embodiment of the MPU 16 (which can be adopted for the MPU 18) is depicted in FIG. 3. The MPU 16 houses three in-line semiconductor device processing stations 29 in the first story of its internal space 23 and an air conditioning system 30 in the second story of the same space 23. These stations 29 are employed in the fabrication of microeletronic circuitry which includes the operations of chemical vapor deposition, etching, lithography, spattering, ion implantation, and diffusion, among others. It follows that one or more of the MPUs 16, 18 can be identified as gas processing units, one or more of the MPUs 16, 18 can be identified as liquid chemical processing units, one or more of the MPUs 16, 18 can be identified as ultra pure water processing units, and one or more of the MPUs 16, 18 can be known as other processing units that do not require gas, chemicals or ultra pure water service, and are also segregated. To be adapted for the illustration of this embodiment, these semiconductor device processing stations 29 are in-line arranged in a direction substantially perpendicular to a radial direction of the ring sections 12, 14. The air conditioning system 30 at the upper story provides the stations 29 at the lower story with air circulation under an ultra clean environment. There are a plurality of service or supply facilities 32 correspondingly detachably provided under the MPUs 16, 18 and there is a handling piping system 34 provided under the service facilities 32. The supply facilities 32 provide the services such as electricity, electro-mechanical pumps, radio-frequency generators, etc. The process cooling water, chillers, natural gas, central vacuum, compressed and dry air, hot water, steam and exhaust are provided by the handling piping system 34. The handling piping system 34 can be distributed to penetrate into the upper fabrication stories, i.e. the internal spaces 23 of the MPUs 16, to connect to the semiconductor fabrication tools in the processing stations 29”
US Patent Pub. No. 2021/0098233, with respect to the RF impedance matacher, discloses “In certain implementations, there is a particular capacitance value for each variable capacitor in the RF adjusters 323 that results in an impedance match. In various implementations, the RF controller 343 communicates with sensor 333 to obtain measurements of the capacitance values of the variable capacitors in the RF adjusters 323, and the RF controller 343 communicates with the RF adjusters 323 to control the variable capacitors in the RF adjusters 323 to achieve the particular capacitance value that results in an impedance match.”
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 on (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