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 Group I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed on 28 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the aforementioned reply.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Interpretation
“A controller configured to perform … ” has been interpreted based on the disclosure set forth in para. 66 which states “The controller 400, which is a control part (control means), is configured as a computer including a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 401, a RAM (Random Access Memory) 402, a memory 403 as a memory device, and an I/O port 404.”.
“A controller capable of controlling” has not necessarily been interpreted as specifically as “a controller configured to perform ... ”. For example, a computer or cpu capable of being programmed or having memory is considered to be readable thereon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-5, 7-12 and 14-17 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 its dependence.
Claim 1 recites that the substrate-processing process may perform a heating process and that the cooler may perform a cooling process. However, claim 1 a presently written does not require that these be performed as part of the claimed invention (e.g. “the controller is configured control the substrate-processing process including a heating process to the substrate” and/or “the controller is configured to control the cooler to perform the cooling process to the substrate in the second area” would reflect the requirement as part of the claim language). Therefore, each of claims 2-5, 7-12 and 14-17, which appear to require such a controller configuration are considered unclear. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed claims dependent on either of these processes being performed are meant to include language clearly expressing the same (i.e. controller configured to control…). Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-8 and 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,407,449 to Zinger in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0148924 to Brak et al.
Regarding claim 1: Zinger discloses a substrate processing system substantially as claimed and comprising: a process chamber (Figs. 1-4, e.g., 45 above each 10-12) where a substrate-processing process including a heating process to a substrate is capable of being performed; a boat (e.g. 16) configured to support the substrate; a revolution part (e.g. 14) including a plurality of boat supports (e.g. compartments 15) configured to support the boat, and capable of revolving the boat supports; a delivery chamber (e.g. 10-12) including a first area (e.g. 15 below 45) below the process chamber, a second area (e.g. rightmost 15 as illustrated in Fig. 4) where the substrate after the heating process is capable of waiting; and a third area (e.g. 15 adjacent 44) where the substrate is capable of being delivered to and from and an adjacent transfer chamber (housing transfer unit 8), among areas above the revolution part; and a cooler (e.g. 48 and 52) capable of performing a cooling process to the substrate in the second area. Note: claim limitation “such that the revolution operation or the movement operation is to be performed depending on a difference between an end time of the substrate-processing process to the substrate in the process chamber and an end time of the cooling process to the substrate in the second area” is considered to be a recitation drawn to an intended use of the apparatus, wherein the courts have ruled 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).
However, Zinger fails to disclose a controller capable of controlling a revolution operation of revolving the substrate from the second area to the third area by the revolution part, or a movement operation of moving the substrate from the process chamber to the first area.
Brak et al. disclose a substrate processing system comprising a controller (e.g., a computer having a processor and memory) including a search tree programming and scheduling programming in order to advantageously determine the desired, e.g., most efficient, action sequence based on the present and simulated subsequent states of the substrate processing system in order to provide high throughput (see, e.g., Figs. 3-5, abstract and paras. 23-25, 36, 42-63).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a controller in Zinger, wherein the controller includes a computer having a processor and memory, and ) with search tree programming and scheduling programming in order to advantageously determine the desired, e.g., most efficient, action sequence based on the present and simulated subsequent states of the substrate processing system in order to provide high throughput as taught by Brak et al.
With respect to claims 2-5, 7-8, 10-12 and 14-17, which are drawn to optimizing the steps performed based on the configuration of the controller, again, Brak et al. teach using the controller that includes a computer having a processor and memory with search tree programming and scheduling programming in order to advantageously determine the desired, e.g., most efficient, action sequence based on the present and simulated subsequent states of the substrate processing system in order to provide high throughput (see, e.g., Figs. 3-5, abstract and paras. 23-25, 36, 42-63). Additionally, the courts have ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Additionally, with respect to claim 5, in Zinger, the cooling process is configured to supply a cooling gas to a substrate waiting in the second area using the aforementioned cooler.
With respect to claim 6, wherein the claim appears to be based merely on an intended use of the claimed apparatus, see above.
Additionally, with respect to claim 8, in Zinger et al., a heater (oven) is provided and configured for heating the process chamber.
With respect to claim 13, wherein the claim appears to be based merely on an intended use of the claimed apparatus, see above.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Zinger as applied to claims 1-8 and 10-17 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,820,366 to Lee.
Modified Zinger discloses the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Zinger fails to disclose the heater is a resistance heater.
Lee discloses a suitable heater for a similar process tube wherein the process tube is surrounded by a resistance heater for the purpose of providing a heat source that is simple to implement, well-characterized and widely accepted as a reliable technique for stable and uniform control of furnace/process tube (see, e.g., column 5, rows 10-47)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the heater as a resistance heater in order to provide heat source that is simple to implement, well-characterized and widely accepted as a reliable technique for stable and uniform control of furnace/process tube temperature as taught by Lee.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Pubs. 2002/0012581 and 2003/0149506 disclose substrate processing apparatus including a controller for controlling the same.
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 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights