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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 9-12 and 21-36 were previously pending. Claims 9-10, 21 and 29 are amended.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 03/20/2026.
Priority
Benefit of earlier filing date of 09/05/2023 of provisional application No. 63/536,528 is acknowledged as required by 35 U.S.C. 119.
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” (means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; the following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for.";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.
Claim 1 recites “a lever engagement member configured to engage the lever”. The three prong tests are:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or a generic placeholder (member),
(B) the term “means” is modified by functional language (configured to engage the lever),
(C) the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function (member is modified by performing lever engagement).
Prong C is not met and therefore this claim limitation is not going to be interpreted to invoke 35 USC 112f.
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 31-32 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.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “biasing the first lever to the first closed position by a first biasing member”. Claim 29 recites “a biasing member”. It is not clear if applicant is claiming a separate biasing member and lever here. Based on figures of the invention, only one biasing member is between each lever and mounting member. Examiner suggests amending “a biasing member” in claim 29 to --a first biasing member--, and “the biasing member” to --the first biasing member--.
Claim 32 is rejected due to dependency on rejected claim 31.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21, 25, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Taniguchi et al. (JP H09171984 A) hereinafter Taniguchi.
Regarding claim 21, Taniguchi teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a method, comprising: supporting a substrate (substrate 12) on a platen (platen comprises substrate table 14 with a plurality of placing pins 16) of a semiconductor processing station (substrate cleaning apparatus 10); biasing a lever (chuck pin 60) of a retainer assembly (retainer assembly comprises at least chuck pin 60, spring 70) to a closed position relative to the platen by a biasing member (biasing member 60 is forced by stopper block 72 to move the lever 60 to a closed position to grip the substrate 12),
PNG
media_image1.png
44
907
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the biasing member being coupled to the lever at a first position and to a mounting member (spring receiver 14b of the substrate table 14) at a second position, the mounting member coupled to the platen (fixed on platen), the second position being between the first position and the substrate; and inhibiting movement of the substrate by the lever when the lever is in the closed position (see Figs. 1 and 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
915
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Taniguchi teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) separating the substrate from a semiconductor processing component (top surface of substrate table 14) by at least a threshold distance by a hard stop device (mounting pins 16) coupled to the platen.
Regarding claim 27, Taniguchi teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) biasing the lever comprises: connecting a spring (70) of the biasing member to a power region of the lever.
PNG
media_image3.png
807
684
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 28, Taniguchi teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) inhibiting movement of the substrate comprises: disposing at least a portion of a weight region of the lever over the substrate.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-24 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hamashima (US 12057328 B2).
Regarding claim 21, Hamashima teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a method, comprising: supporting a substrate (W) on a platen (11) of a semiconductor processing station (substrate W is supported on 11 via 22); biasing a lever (22) of a retainer assembly to a closed position relative to the platen by a biasing member (28), the biasing member being coupled to the lever at a first position and to a mounting member (12) at a second position, the mounting member coupled to the platen (via 13), the second position being between the first position and the substrate; and inhibiting movement of the substrate by the lever when the lever is in the closed position (as shown in Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
687
1177
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Hamashima teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) apply a lever-opening force to the lever by a lever engagement member (22), the lever-opening force moving the lever from the closed position to an open position relative to the platen (by pivoting the lever 22 clockwise about third shaft body 29).
Regarding claim 23, Hamashima teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) moving the lever from the closed position to the open position comprises: moving the lever from the closed position in which the lever obstructs a first path of motion of the substrate (when lever 22 is in closed position, the substrate W is prevented to move in any path); and moving the lever to the open position in which the lever does not obstruct the first path of motion of the substrate (when lever 22 is in open position, the substrate W is free to move).
Regarding claim 24, Hamashima teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) wherein moving the lever from the closed position to the open position comprises: applying the lever-opening force overcoming a biasing force applied by the biasing member to the lever.
PNG
media_image5.png
84
906
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 27, Hamashima teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) biasing the lever comprises: connecting a spring (28) of the biasing member to a power region of the lever (concave spring seat of the lever 22).
Regarding claim 28, Hamashima teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) inhibiting movement of the substrate comprises: disposing at least a portion of a weight region of the lever over the substrate.
Claims 29-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN 101587851 A) hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 29, Zhang teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a method, comprising: inhibiting movement of a substrate on a platen (2 and 6) of a semiconductor processing station along a path of motion by a first lever (3) when the first lever is in a first closed position relative to the platen (as shown in Figs. 5 and 6, when lever is in closed position, substrate W is inhibited from movement in any path), the first lever being pivotally coupled to a first mounting member by a biasing member (compare Figs. 4 and 6 which shows lever 3 pivotally coupled to the first mounting member 8 via spring 4), the first mounting member (8) being coupled to the platen; and applying a first lever-opening force (to a first surface of a power region of the first lever to pivot the first lever relative to the first mounting member such that the first lever is moved from the first closed position to a first open position relative to the platen (see Figs. 1 and 4), wherein the first lever does not inhibit the movement of the substrate along the path of motion when the first lever is in the first open position (when lever are not engaging the substrate), and the biasing member is coupled to a second surface of the power region of the first lever opposite the first surface of the power region.
Regarding claim 30, Zhang teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) inhibiting the movement of the substrate along the path of motion by a second lever when the second lever is in a second closed position relative to the platen, the second lever being pivotally coupled to a second mounting member coupled to the platen; and applying a second lever-opening force (F) to the second lever to pivot the second lever relative to the second mounting member such that the second lever is moved from the second closed position to a second open position relative to the platen, wherein the second lever does not inhibit the movement of the substrate along the path of motion when the second lever is in the second open position (first and second levers have the same structure and function as discussed above).
Regarding claim 31, Zhang teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) biasing the first lever to the first closed position by a first biasing member (4) coupled between the first lever (3) and the first mounting member (8).
Regarding claim 32, Zhang teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) biasing the first lever comprises coupling a spring (4) between the first lever (3) and the first mounting member (8).
Regarding claim 33, Zhang teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) applying the first lever-opening force (F) comprises: applying the first lever-opening force to overcome a first biasing force applied by a first biasing member to the first lever.
Regarding claim 34, Zhang teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) separating the substrate from the semiconductor processing station by at least a threshold distance by a hard stop device (6) coupled to the platen.
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 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi in view of Walther (US 20030082891 A1).
Regarding claim 26 , Taniguchi does not teach using a faraday cup for ion detection.
Walther teaches a wafer holding device with a platen 76 and “A faraday cup 148 may be positioned in alignment with ribbon ion beam 62 for dose and uniformity measurements” (see par. 0038).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a faraday cup when using device of Taniguchi, in ion implementation process. Doing so would make it possible to test uniformity in ion deposition on the wafer.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Walther (US 20030082891 A1).
Regarding claim 35 , Zhang does not teach using a faraday cup for ion detection.
Walther teaches a wafer holding device with a platen 76 and “A faraday cup 148 may be positioned in alignment with ribbon ion beam 62 for dose and uniformity measurements” (see par. 0038).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a faraday cup when using device of Zhang, in ion implementation process. Doing so would make it possible to test uniformity in ion deposition on the wafer.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Gleissner et al. (US 11942356 B2) hereinafter Gleissner.
Regarding claim 36, Zhang is silent regarding protective structure for the first lever.
Gleissner teaches a wafer gripper with a protective structure “To avoid scratching of a substrate during processing” (col. 6. Line 58-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a first protective structure on the first lever. Doing so would avoid scratching of the substrate during processing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 are allowed.
Claim 9 is allowed for disclosing “when the semiconductor wafer is in the target wafer position relative to the platen, using a biasing force applied by the biasing member to the lever, moving the lever to the closed position relative to the platen, wherein the lever inhibits movement of the semiconductor wafer from the target wafer position when the lever is in the closed position.”
The closest prior art to the claimed invention of claim 9 is Kim (KR 2005070972 A).
Kim teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a method of operating a wafer retaining device (Abstract: “clamp assembly … for gripping a transparent substrate”), the wafer retaining device comprising: a platen (platen 104) configured to support a semiconductor wafer (transparent substrate 1); a retainer assembly comprising a lever (clamp bar 120) and a biasing member (tension spring coil 130) configured to bias the lever to a closed position relative to the platen (“tension spring coil(130) for pulling the bottom end of the clamp bar from the platen”); and a lever engagement member (140) configured to engage the lever; and the method comprising: applying, through the lever engagement member (by movement of 140 upward as shown above), a lever-opening force to the lever to move the lever from the closed position to an open position relative to the platen; (pivoting around O) relative to the platen.
PNG
media_image6.png
204
738
media_image6.png
Greyscale
However in device of Kim, the wafer is clamped in vertical target position by vacuum and not a lever.
PNG
media_image7.png
1079
615
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claims 10-12 are allowed due to dependency on allowed claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 21 and 29 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new primary reference and combination of the references being used in the current rejection as necessitated by amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MAHDI H NEJAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4pm 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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
MAHDI H. NEJAD
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MAHDI H NEJAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
