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 .
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: a transfer mechanism in claim 6 wherein transfer is a functional language with the mechanism being a generic placeholder for means.
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 limitation “transfer mechanism” in claim 6 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 discloses for the transfer mechanism that is configured to transfer the carrier into the heat treatment chamber but lacks any specific corresponding structure that performs such 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timans et al (US 2003/0183612; hereinafter Timans ‘612) in view of Timans (US 2009/0161724; hereinafter Timans ‘724).
With respect to claims 1 and 11, Timans ‘612 discloses the structure and method claimed including a chamber housing (34) with a light transmitting window (40) forming a part of the chamber housing, and light source (46) provided on an outer side of the chamber housing for irradiating light on a substrate (36) arranged in the chamber housing through the light transmitting window. But, Timans ‘612 does not disclose the light source is an LED light source.
Timans ‘724 discloses it is known to a light source (30) for heating a substrate (12) by light irradiation wherein the light source can be an LED light source (para 0039).
In view of Timans’ 724, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Timans’ 612 with the light source that can be alternatively provided with an LED light source that is known to predictably provide a high heating light irradiation to adequately and suitably process the substrate as known in the art.
With respect to claims 2 and 12, Timans ‘612, as modified by Timans ‘724, discloses that the light transmitting window is made of a quartz (para 0061 of Timans ‘612) which is the same preferred material used in the disclosed invention (also, see para 0050 on page 16 of the Applicant’s specification) wherein the quart window of Timans ‘612 would also be also capable of transmitting at least 50% or more of the light from the LED light source as done in the Applicant’s invention. Also, see MPEP 21112.01.II.
With respect to claim 3, Timans ‘612, as modified by Timans ‘724, discloses the LED light source that is spaced or separated from the substrate, and while Timans ‘612 does not show that the separation is less than or equal to 50 mm, it would have been obvious to provide the LED light source to be less than or equal to 50 mm as a matter of routine optimization to predictably and effectively provide the desired high light irradiation without losing or weaking its light intensity if the light source is situated further away from the substrate.
With respect to claim 4, Timans ‘612, as modified by Timans ‘724, discloses the LED light source that emits radiation in the wavelength range that includes 100 nm (para 0039 of Timans ‘724) which is less than 500 nm wherein Timans ‘612 discloses the light transmitting window is formed of quartz which is known to be silica.
With respect to claim 5, Timans ‘612 as modified by Timans ‘724 discloses the chamber housing that that includes a first wall with a first light transmitting window (40) forming the first wall, a second wall opposed to the first wall wherein a second light transmitting window (42) forming the second wall wherein a first light source (46) irradiates the light through the first light transmitting widow and a second light source (44) irradiates the light through the second light transmitting window that performs the heat treatment on both a first side and a second side of the substrate as illustrated in Figure 1 wherein the first light source and the second light source can be an LED light source as taught by Timans ‘724 (also, see para 0039 Timans ‘724).
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timans et al (US 2003/0183612; hereinafter Timans ‘612) in view of Saito (US 2023/0005798) and Timans (US 2009/0161724; hereinafter Timans ‘724).
Timans ‘612 discloses the structure claimed including a heat treatment chamber housing (34) and the chamber housing having a light transmitting window (40) forming a part of the chamber housing, and light source (46) provided on an outer side of the chamber housing for irradiating light on a substrate (36) arranged in the chamber housing through the light transmitting window. But, Timans ‘612 does not show a carrier that holds the substrate with a plurality of support members, a transfer mechanism that transfers the carrier into the heat treatment chamber, and the light source being an LED light source.
Saito shows it is known to provide a carrier having a plurality of support members shown by a transfer arm (51a) and holding the substrate by an opening of a substrate holder to which the plurality of support members are attached, a transfer mechanism (50) for transferring the carrier into a heating treatment chamber (100) to transfer a substrate (W) into the heating treatment chamber for its heat treatment by a light source (150). Also see annotated drawing Figure 1 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
532
509
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Timans ‘724 discloses it is known to a light source (30) for heating a substrate (12) by light irradiation wherein the light source can be an LED light source (para 0039).
In view of Saito and Timans’ 724, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Timans’ 612 with a carrier having a plurality of support members for holding the substrate and carrying the substrate into the heating chamber which can be performed automatically via a controller to predictably and safely deliver the substrate into the heating chamber for its heat treatment as disclosed by Saito wherein the light source that can be alternatively provided with an LED light source that is known to predictably provide a high heating light irradiation to adequately and suitably process the substrate as known in the art.
With respect to claim 7, Timans ‘612, as modified by Saito and Timans ‘724, discloses that the light transmitting window is made of a quartz (para 0061 of Timans ‘612) which is the same preferred material used in the disclosed invention (also, see para 0050 on page 16 of the Applicant’s specification) wherein the quart window of Timans ‘612 would also be also capable of transmitting at least 50% or more of the light from the LED light source as done in the Applicant’s invention. Also, see MPEP 21112.01.II.
With respect to claim 8, Timans ‘612, as modified by Saito and Timans ‘724, discloses the LED light source that is spaced or separated from the substrate, and while Timans ‘612 does not show that the separation is less than or equal to 50 mm, it would have been obvious to provide the LED light source to be less than or equal to 50 mm as a matter of routine optimization to predictably and effectively provide the desired high light irradiation without losing or weaking its light intensity if the light source is situated further away from the substrate.
With respect to claim 9, Timans ‘612, as modified by Saito and Timans ‘724, discloses the LED light source that emits radiation in the wavelength range that includes 100 nm (para 0039 of Timans ‘724) which is less than 500 nm wherein Timans ‘612 discloses the light transmitting window is formed of quartz which is known to be silica.
With respect to claim 10, Timans ‘612 as modified by Saito and Timans ‘724, discloses the chamber housing that that includes a first wall with a first light transmitting window (40) forming the first wall, a second wall opposed to the first wall wherein a second light transmitting window (42) forming the second wall wherein a first light source (46) irradiates the light through the first light transmitting widow and a second light source (44) irradiates the light through the second light transmitting window that performs the heat treatment on both a first side and a second side of the substrate as illustrated in Figure 1 wherein the first light source and the second light source can be an LED light source as taught by Timans ‘724 (also, see para 0039 Timans ‘724).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gat (US 2001/0002668) discloses a light transmitting window made of silica or quartz.
Toyoda (US 2014/0170862) discloses for a carrier with a plurality support arms for carrying and holding a substrate thereto with a transfer mechanism for transferring the carrier.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights