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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on July 2, 2026. These drawings are approved.
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:
support unit in claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 20;
temperature analysis unit in claims 1-7, 13, 14, and 20;
heating unit in claims 5 and 20;
temperature measurement module in claims 7, 8, 11-14, and 20;
temperature analysis circuit unit in claims 11 and 20;
module side communication unit in claims 11 and 20;
connection unit in claims 12 and 20;
atmospheric pressure transfer module in claims 14 and 20;
vacuum transfer module in claims 14 and 20; and
temperature analysis module in claims 7, 11, 14, and 20.
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. Specifically,
support unit 600 is interpreted as being a substrate support (Figure 2);
temperature analysis unit 70 is interpreted as being the temperature measurement module 71 and temperature analysis module 72;
heating unit 670 is interpreted as being a heater 671;
temperature measurement module 71 is interpreted as being temperature sensors 71a;
temperature analysis circuit unit 72a is interpreted as being a temperature analysis circuit;
module side communication unit 72b is interpreted as being a wireless communication circuit;
connection unit 72e is interpreted as being wires 71e;
atmospheric pressure transfer module 20 is interpreted as being atmospheric pressure transfer chamber;
vacuum transfer module 30 is interpreted as being a vacuum transfer chamber; and
temperature analysis module 72 is interpreted as being the temperature analysis circuit unit 72a, module side communication unit 72b and battery 72c.
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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Criminale et al, US 2020/0294836, in view of Lee, KR 102076291 B1.
Regarding claim 1, Criminale et al teaches a substrate treating apparatus 100 comprising: a process chamber 120 including a housing at which a treating space is formed (Figure 1) for process treating a substrate 118 and a support unit 210 positioned at the treating space and configured to support the substrate 118; wherein the process chamber controller 160 controls a temperature of the support unit based on temperature information.
Criminale et al differs from the present invention in that Criminale et al does not teach a temperature analysis unit configured to detect a temperature information of the support unit while mounted on the support unit and transmitting a detected temperature information to the process chamber.
Lee teaches a temperature analysis unit 1 configured to detect a temperature information of the support unit while mounted on the support unit via sensors 10 and transmitting via communicating unit 20 a detected temperature information to the process chamber controller 3. (Figures 1 and 2)
The motivation for using the temperature analysis unit of Lee in the apparatus of Criminale et al is to calibrate and correct the temperature control of the support unit in the apparatus of Criminale et al as taught by Lee. Furthermore, it has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to use the temperature analysis unit of Lee in the apparatus of Criminale et al as taught by ‘291.
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches that the temperature analysis unit detects the temperature information while mounted on the treating space instead of the substrate.
Regarding claim 3, Criminale et al teaches that the support unit 210 includes an electrostatic chuck for sucking the substrate with an electrostatic force (Paragraph 0034), and the combination of Criminale et al and Lee teach that the temperature analysis unit detects the temperature information of the electrostatic chuck.
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches that the temperature analysis unit detects the temperature information of the electrostatic chuck by regions via each of the plurality of sensors.
Regarding claim 5, Criminale et al teaches that the process chamber 120 further includes a heating unit 214 configured to heat the electrostatic chuck by regions (Criminale et al, Paragraph 0056), and Lee teaches that the temperature analysis unit 1 transmits a detected temperature information to the controller, and C heating unit controller , and Criminale et al teaches that controller 160 receives temperature control information and controls the heating unit heat to heat the electrostatic chuck by regions based on the temperature information.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “the process chamber blocks a communication between the temperature analysis unit positioned at the treating space and the process chamber when switching to a closed state” is an intended use of the controller. Furthermore, it has been held that: “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Emphasis in original) Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus “ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Also see MPEP 2114. The apparatus of Criminale et al and Lee teach all of the claimed structure and are capable of functioning in the claimed manner.
Regarding claim 7, as discussed above Criminale et al and Lee teach that the temperature analysis unit includes: a temperature measurement module 20 which measures a surface temperature of the support unit 210 by regions while mounted on the support unit 210 to detect the temperature information; and a temperature analysis unit 30 configured to connect with the temperature measurement module 20 to be input with the temperature information, to analyze an input temperature information by region to change to a temperature distribution information, and to transfer a changed temperature distribution information to the process chamber.
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches that the temperature measurement module includes: a temperature sensor 20 disposed in a plurality which are spaced apart from one another; and a sensor side circuit board (wafer) on which the temperature sensor 20 is installed on which a circuit pattern electrically connected to each of the temperature sensors is formed, and which is mounted on the support unit.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the specific sensor used is an obvious design choice and it would be obvious to select a specific well known type of sensor for use in the temperature analysis unit of Lee to measure the temperature in the desired location. Surface elastic wave temperature sensor, RTD sensor, and thermistor are all well-known sensors. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to use a Surface elastic wave temperature sensor, RTD sensor, or thermistor as a sensor in the apparatus of ‘291.
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches that the temperature analysis module includes: a temperature analysis circuit unit 30 configured to electrically connect with the temperature sensors 10 and analyze a temperature information detected by the temperature sensors to generate a temperature distribution information by regions of the support unit; a module side communication unit 20 configured to connect with the temperature analysis circuit unit, to be input with the temperature distribution information from the temperature analysis circuit unit, and to wirelessly transmit an input temperature distribution information to the process chamber; a battery 40 electrically connected to the temperature analysis circuit unit 30 and the module side communication unit 20, and supplying a power to the temperature analysis unit circuit unit 30 and the module side communication unit 20; and an analysis side circuit board (wafer) on which the temperature analysis circuit unit, the module side communication unit and the battery are installed, and on which a circuit pattern electrically connecting the temperature analysis circuit unit, the module side communication unit, and the battery is formed.
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches that the temperature analysis module 1 further includes a connection unit (wires shown in Figure 1) configured to electrically connect the analysis side circuit board (wafer) and the temperature measurement module 10.
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches the temperature analysis unit further includes a coupling body coupling the temperature measurement module and the temperature analysis unit in an attachable/detachable manner.
Regarding claim 14, Criminale et al teaches a load port (Figure 1) at which the temperature analysis unit is put; an atmospheric pressure transfer module 140 positioned at a side of the load port and which transfers the temperature analysis unit within the load port in an atmospheric pressure state; a load lock chamber 132 positioned at a side of the atmospheric pressure transfer module 140, which transduces an atmospheric pressure to a vacuum pressure, and forms a space at which the temperature analysis unit is transferred; and a vacuum transfer module 130 which forms a vacuum pressure state, which transfers the temperature analysis unit positioned at the atmospheric pressure transfer module to the load lock chamber, and which mounts a transferred temperature analysis unit on the support unit of the process chamber, and wherein the sensor side circuit board. Putting direction confirmation region for checking an putting direction are well known in the art and it would be obvious to change the shape of the temperature analysis unit to provide a putting direction confirmation region so that the atmospheric pressure transfer module mounts the temperature analysis unit on the support unit so the putting direction confirmation region faces a certain direction, and the coupling body is disposed in a plurality and any one coupling method among the plurality is formed differently so the temperature measurement module and the temperature analysis module are coupled only at a specific position.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is a consolidation of all of the elements of claims 1-14 in a single claim. Claim 20 is rejected under Criminale et al and Lee for the reasons indicated in the rejections of claims 1-14 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “Lee does not disclose or suggest that the sensor-mounted wafer 1 is "configured to detect temperature information of the support unit, the temperature analysis unit being on the support unit,"”, the Examiner disagrees for the following reasons:
The limitation "configured to detect temperature information of the support unit" is functional language and requires the minimal structure required to do the function. Lee teaches the minimal structure. The combination relies on Criminale et al to provide the heated support. The only heater discussed in Criminale et al is the heated support. Thus any temperature measurement done by Lee in the apparatus of Criminale et al detects temperature information of the support unit. Therefore, the combination of Criminale et al and Lee teaches the limitation "configured to detect temperature information of the support unit".
Regarding the limitation “the temperature analysis unit being on the support unit”, Lee teaches a sensor-mounted wafer that is used to measure the actual temperature of the substrate to compare with the predicted temperature of the substrate heated by a heater. In the combination of Criminale et al and Lee the sensor-mounted wafer would be placed onto the heated substrate support assembly 200 in a processing chamber 120 by the transfer chamber robot 114. (Paragraph 0030) Once the sensor-mounted wafer is placed on the heated substrate support, the chamber is sealed and the process is run allowing the sensor-wafer to measure the temperature information of the support unit. Thus the combination of Criminale et al and Lee teaches that the temperature analysis unit of Lee is on the support unit of Criminale et al.
The Examiner notes that if the Applicant wants to distinguish the sensor-mounted wafer Applicant needs to claim a specific structure not what the structure is trying to do.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art teaches the technological background of the invention. KR 20180114088 A or KR 1020180026079 could be used in place of Criminale et al.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jeffrie R Lund whose telephone number is (571)272-1437. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm (Monday-Friday).
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.
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights