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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 2 in the reply filed on 05/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2, 4-11, and 18-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/19/2026.
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:
“negative pressure preventer for preventing a negative pressure locally formed in the gap space due to a pressure difference between an outer downward airflow flowing along sides of the semiconductor manufacturing equipment and expelled to an outside through the through holes of the grating panel, and an inner downward airflow flowing from the semiconductor manufacturing equipment to the grating panel by the fan and expelled to the outside through the through holes of the grating panel” in claim 1 defined in the specification as comprising a blocking frame and a blocking cover in page 10 of the specification and figure 5. Examiner notes that claim 3 positively recites the structure of the negative pressure preventer and therefore claim 3 is not being interpreted under 112(f).
“an index module for transferring a plurality of substrates from a carrier storing the substrates” in claim 12 defined in the specification as comprising an index frame, a load port mounted on the index frame to seat thereon the carrier storing the substrates, a guide rail mounted in the index frame, and an index robot moving along the guide rail to transfer the substrates on page 4 of the specification. Examiner notes that claim 15 positively recites structure of the index module and therefore claim 15 is not being interpreted under 112(f).
“a treating module comprising a plurality of processing blocks for processing the transferred substrates” in claim 12 defined in the specification as including coating blocks and development blocks on page 8. The coating block is further defined as including heat treatment chambers 3200, a transfer chamber 3400, liquid treatment chambers 3600, and buffer chambers 3800 on page 8 of the specification. The development block is further defined as performing a development process on page 4 of the specification.
“an airflow former for forming a downward airflow” in claim 14 defined as a fan on page 12 of the specification
“coating blocks stacked on one another in one or more layers to perform a coating process on the substrates” in claim 16 defined in the specification as including heat treatment chambers 3200, a transfer chamber 3400, liquid treatment chambers 3600, and buffer chambers 3800 on page 8 of the specification. Examiner notes that claim 17 has recited structure for the coating block and therefore in claim 17 the coating block is not being interpreted under 112(f).
“development blocks stacked on one another in one or more layers to perform a development process on the substrates” in claim 16. The development block is further defined as performing a development process on page 4 of the specification.
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.
Claim 13 and 16-17 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 13 recites the limitation "directly below the fan mounted downward on the bottom plate of the index module or the treating module" in lines 3 & 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the fan mounted downward on the bottom plate of the index module or the treating module is the same fan recited in claim 1 or is an additional fan.
Regarding claim 16, both the “coating blocks” and “development blocks” are claimed as “stacked on one another in one or more layers…”. It is unclear how blocks can be stacked on one another in only a single layer. In applying art, the limitation has been interpreted as one or more layers that can be stacked.
Claim 17 depend upon claim 16 and therefore contains the same indefinite claim limitations.
Claim limitation “development blocks stacked on one another in one or more layers to perform a development process on the substrates” 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. The specification recites on page 4 the same language as the claim which does not recite structure for performing the claimed function and applicant's figure 3 uses a single bracket to point to both the development block and coating block with all further labelled subcomponents in the figure being parts of the coating block leaving no other parts in the figure as part of the development block 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.
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.
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 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 2000-0059748 A) in view of Shiraiwa (US 5,054,988).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an airflow control system (see Kim figure 4) comprising:
At least one grating panel (Kim 32) mounted on a floor (Kim 12a) of a clean room (Kim 12 and 20, examiner notes the translation of Kim refers to the room 12 as a base) and comprising a plurality of through holes (see Kim figure 5a and 5b);
A semiconductor manufacturing equipment (Kim 14) spaced apart from the grating panel by a gap space (see annotated figure); and
A negative pressure preventer (Kim 34, 36, 38, and 39) in the form of a shutter (Kim 34) and motor (Kim 36) and a rack (Kim 39) and pinion (Kim 38) for preventing a negative pressure locally formed in the gap space (see Kim translation page 4 paragraph 4) due to a pressure difference between an outer downward airflow (see annotated figure) flowing along sides of the semiconductor manufacturing equipment and an inner downward airflow (see annotated figure) flowing from the semiconductor manufacturing equipment to the grating panel and expelled to the outside through the through holes of the grating panel.
PNG
media_image1.png
543
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim figure 4 (annotated)
Kim is silent regarding the semiconductor manufacturing equipment being spaced apart by supports or legs and is further silent regarding the semiconductor manufacturing equipment comprising a fan mounted toward the grating panel and producing the inner downward airflow.
However, Shiraiwa teaches a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (Shiraiwa 11) intended for use in a clean room (Shiraiwa column 3 lines 43-50) spaced apart from a grating panel (Shiraiwa 10) by legs (see Shiraiwa figure 2) and a plurality of fans (Shiraiwa 24) near the grating (see Shiraiwa figure 2) that generate a flow of air out of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus and into the grating floor to expel dust generated within the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (Shiraiwa column 5 lines 21-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kim’s airflow control system to incorporate Shiraiwa’s legs to produce a predictable result of supporting the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus and to incorporate Shiraiwa’s teaching of a fan mounted toward the grating panel to expel dust from the semiconductor manufacturing equipment into the grating thereby preventing wafers from being contaminated by duct.
Regarding claim 3, Kim and Shiraiwa as applied to claim 1 teach the negative pressure preventer comprises a blocking frame (see annotated figure)mounted on an upper surface of the grating panel (Kim 32) and comprising a plurality of thorough windows arranged in rows and columns (figure 5b depicts only a single frame but there is a plurality distributed across the floor as shown in figure 4); and a blocking cover (Kim 34). Examiner notes that the limitation “mounted on an upper surface” is relative and that from beneath the grating the frame is on an upper surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
591
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim figure 3 (annotated)
Claim(s) 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 2000-0059748 A) and Shiraiwa (US 5,054,988) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2010/0192844 A1) hereafter referred to as Kim 2010 to avoid confusion with the other Kim reference.
Regarding claim 12, Kim and Shiraiwa as applied to claim 1 are silent regarding the semiconductor manufacturing equipment comprising an index module for transferring substrates from a carrier storing the substrates and a treating module comprising process blocks for processing the transferred substrates.
However, Kim 2010 teaches a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (Kim 2010, 1) comprising
an index module (Kim 2010, 100 and 200) comprising an index frame (Kim 2010, 210), a load port (Kim 2010, 100) mounted on the index frame to seat thereon the carrier (Kim 2010, 20) storing the substrates, a guide rail (Kim 2010, 230) mounted in the index frame (see Kim 2010, figure 1) and an index robot (Kim 2010, 220) moving along the guide rail to transfer the substrates (Kim 2010, [0034]); and
a treating module (Kim 2010, 300 and 400) comprising a plurality of process blocks (Kim 2010, 401 and 402) for processing the transferred substrates, specifically the process blocks are coating blocks (Kim 2010, 401) and development blocks (Kim 2010, 402).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kim’s airflow control system to utilize Kim 2010’s teachings of a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus that comprises an index module, and treating module comprising a plurality of process blocks to produce a predictable result of allowing a plurality of substrates to undergo coating processes and development processes at the same time to improve manufacturing capacity of the facility.
Regarding claim 13, Kim, Shiraiwa, and Kim 2010 as applied to claim 12 teach a plurality of negative pressure preventers (Kim 34, 36, 38, and 39, see Kim figure 4) spread across the floor and 13 therefore one of the negative pressure preventers will be located below a center of a bottom plate of the index module or the treating module.
Regarding claim 14, Kim, Shiraiwa, and Kim 2010 as applied to claim 12 are silent regarding an airflow former for forming a downward airflow being mounted on the index module or the treating module.
However, Shiraiwa’s semiconductor manufacturing equipment (Shiraiwa 11) is specifically a wafer transferring apparatus comprising a load port (Shiraiwa 11a) to seat thereon a carrier (Shiraiwa 22) storing a substrate (Shiraiwa 21), a guide rail (Shiraiwa column 4 lines 1-2) and a robotic handling device (Shiraiwa 13) which moves along the rail to transfer the substrates (Shiraiwa column 4 lines 1-2) and a plurality of fans (Shiraiwa 19, 20, and 24) configured to generate a flow of air out of the wafer transferring apparatus and into the grating floor to expel dust generated within the semiconductor wafer transfer apparatus (Shiraiwa column 5 lines 21-31). . Examiner notes that Shiraiwa’s wafer transfer device is consistent with applicant’s definition of the index module as comprising a load port, guide rail , and an index robot on page 4 of the specification.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kim’s airflow control system to incorporate Shiraiwa’s teachings of fans for forming airflow mounted to an index module to produce a predictable result of expelling dust from the index module to reduce the risk of dust contaminating the wafers.
Regarding claim 15, Kim, Shiraiwa, and Kim 2010 as applied to claim 15 teach the index module (Kim 2010, 100 and 200) comprises an index frame (Kim 2010, 210), a load port (Kim 2010, 100) mounted on the index frame to seat thereon the carrier (Kim 2010, 20) storing the substrates, a guide rail (Kim 2010, 230) mounted in the index frame (see Kim 2010, figure 1) and an index robot (Kim 2010, 220) moving along the guide rail to transfer the substrates (Kim 2010, [0034]).
Regarding claim 16, Kim, Shiraiwa, and Kim 2010 as applied to claim 12 teach the treating module (Kim 2010, 300 and 400) comprises coating blocks (Kim 2010, 401) that perform a coating process on the substrates (Kim 2010, [0042]) and development blocks (Kim 2010, 402) that perform a development process (Kim 2010, [0046]) that are stacked atop each other in different layers (Kim 2010, [0041]).
Kim, Shiraiwa, and Kim 2010 are silent regarding a plurality of coating blocks and development blocks.
However, a court has held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (see MPEP §2144.04 VI B)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to duplicate Kim 2010’s coating blocks and development blocks to increase the number of wafers that can be processed at the same time.
Regarding claim 17, Kim Shiraiwa, and Kim 2010 as applied to claim 16 further teach, the coating block (Kim 2010, 401) comprises heat treatment chambers (Kim 2010, 420) for performing a heat treatment process on the substrates (Kim 2010, [0045]), liquid treatment chambers (Kim 2010, 410) for supplying a liquid onto the substrates to form a liquid layer (Kim 2010, [0044]), and a transfer chamber (Kim 2010, 430) for transferring the substrates between the heat treatment chambers and the liquid treatment chambers (Kim 2010, [0043]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R BRAWNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/CHARLES R BRAWNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights