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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of the Group II (method claims) in the reply filed on 02/09/2029 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-8 and 13-20 are cancelled. New method claims 21-36 are added.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites “when the semiconductor wafer is in the target wafer position relative to the platen, moving, using a biasing force applied by the biasing member to the lever, the lever to the closed position relative to the platen” which is ambiguous. Examiner suggests amending this limitation as below to overcome the rejection: -- when the semiconductor wafer is in the target wafer position relative to the platen, moving the lever to the closed position relative to the platen--.
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 21-24, 27-28 and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR 2005070972 A) hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 21, Kim teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a method, comprising: supporting a substrate (transparent substrate 1) on a platen (platen 104) of a semiconductor processing station (thin film deposition chamber 110);
PNG
media_image1.png
52
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
56
720
media_image2.png
Greyscale
biasing a lever (clamp bar 120) of a retainer assembly to a closed position relative to the platen by a biasing member (“tension spring coil(130) for pulling the bottom end of the clamp bar from the platen”), the biasing member being coupled to the lever and to a mounting member (138) coupled to the platen; and inhibiting movement of the substrate by the lever when the lever is in the closed position.
PNG
media_image3.png
1079
615
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Kim teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) apply a lever-opening force to the lever by a lever engagement member (roller pin 140), the lever-opening force (upward force of roller pin 140) moving the lever from the closed position to an open position relative to the platen.
PNG
media_image4.png
170
742
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Kim 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 the lever 120 is in closed position, projected upper end 120a of the lever 120 obstructs first path/upward motion of the substrate 120); and moving the lever to the open position in which the lever does not obstruct the first path of motion of the substrate (when the lever 120 is in open position, projected upper end 120a of the lever 120 is away from top surface of the substrate 1 and therefore does not obstruct first path/upward motion of the substrate 120).
Regarding claim 24, Kim teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) 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 (roller pin 140 forces the lever/clamp 120 to open overcoming a biasing force applied by the extension spring 130).
Regarding claim 27, Kim teaches (reproduced and annotated Fig. below) biasing the lever comprises: connecting a spring of the biasing member (130) to a power region of the lever.
PNG
media_image5.png
405
446
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 28, Kim teaches (reproduced and annotated Fig. below) inhibiting movement of the substrate comprises: disposing at least a portion of a weight region (120a) of the lever (120) over the substrate.
PNG
media_image6.png
402
417
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 29, Kim teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) a method, comprising: inhibiting movement of a substrate (transparent substrate 1) on a platen (platen 104) of a semiconductor processing station (thin film deposition chamber 110)
PNG
media_image1.png
52
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
56
720
media_image2.png
Greyscale
along a path of motion by a first lever when the first lever is in a first closed position relative to the platen (when the lever 120 is in closed position, projected upper end 120a of the lever 120 inhibits movement of the substrate 120 along an upward path of motion), the first lever being pivotally coupled to a first mounting member (138) coupled to the platen; and applying a first lever-opening force to 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 (roller pin 140 forces the lever/clamp 120 to open overcoming a biasing force applied by the extension spring 130), 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 the lever 120 is in open position, projected upper end 120a of the lever 120 is away from top surface of the substrate 1 and therefore does not inhibit movement of the substrate 120 along the upward path of motion).
Regarding claim 30, Kim teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) inhibiting the movement of the substrate along the path of motion by a second lever (Fig. 2 shows four retaining assemblies/clamp assemblies, each comprising a lever 120 which is shown in detail in annotated Fig. 3 above) when the second lever is in a second closed position relative to the platen (when the lever 120 is in closed position, projected upper end 120a of the lever 120 inhibits movement of the substrate 120 along an upward path of motion), the second lever being pivotally coupled to a second mounting member (138) coupled to the platen; and applying a second lever-opening force 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 (when the lever 120 is in open position, projected upper end 120a of the lever 120 is away from top surface of the substrate 1 and therefore does not inhibit movement of the substrate 120 along the upward path of motion).
PNG
media_image7.png
52
738
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
54
740
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 31 and 32, Kim teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) biasing the first lever to the first closed position by a first biasing member coupled between the first lever and the first mounting member; biasing the first lever comprises coupling a spring between the first lever and the first mounting member (ends of extension spring 130 are connected to the power portion of the lever 120 and the mounting member 138; the extension spring 130 pulls the power portion of the lever 120 to closed position clamping the substrate 1).
Regarding claim 33, Kim teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) applying the first lever-opening force (by upward force of roller pin 140) comprises: applying the first lever-opening force to overcome a first biasing force applied by a first biasing member to the first lever (roller pin 140 forces the lever/clamp 120 to open overcoming a biasing force applied by the extension spring 130).
Claims 9, 11-12, 21-25, 27-28, 29-30 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato (US 10790182 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Kato teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a method of operating a wafer retaining device, the wafer retaining device comprising: a platen (rotary table 2) configured to support a semiconductor wafer (W); a retainer assembly comprising a lever (lever comprises substrate holding member 80, 82, 83) and a biasing member (90) configured to bias the lever to a closed position relative to the platen (par. 12, lines 27-39);
PNG
media_image9.png
80
906
media_image9.png
Greyscale
and a lever engagement member (100) configured to engage the lever; and the method comprising: applying, through the lever engagement member (par. 12, lines 27-39), a lever-opening force (F) to the lever to move the lever from the closed position to an open position relative to the platen; and when the lever is in the open position, transferring (by lift pin 16) the semiconductor wafer to a target wafer position (position shown in Fig. 8A) relative to the platen.
PNG
media_image10.png
725
834
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Kato teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the lever does not obstruct a path of motion of the semiconductor wafer when the lever is in the open position; transferring the semiconductor wafer to the target wafer position comprises moving the semiconductor wafer along the path of motion (upward path) to the target wafer position when the lever is in the open position; and the method comprises when the lever is in the closed position, obstructing the path of motion of the semiconductor wafer using the lever.
Regarding claim 12, Kato teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the lever moves from the closed position to the open position when the lever opening force overcomes a biasing force applied by the biasing member to the lever (movement of the lever engagement member 100 upward forces the lever 80 to rotate away from the platen 2 to open position).
Regarding claim 21, Kato teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) a method, comprising: supporting a substrate (W) on a platen (rotary table 2) of a semiconductor processing station (“substrate processing apparatus”; “processing chamber”); biasing a lever (lever comprises 80, 82, 83) of a retainer assembly to a closed position relative to the platen by a biasing member (90), the biasing member being coupled (from top) to the lever and to (from bottom) a mounting member (spring support member 91) coupled to the platen; and inhibiting movement of the substrate by the lever when the lever is in the closed position (as shown in Fig. 11 above when part 80 of the lever is in closed position, movement of W in upward direction is obstructed).
Regarding claim 22, Kato teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) apply a lever-opening force to the lever by a lever engagement member (pushing pin 100), the lever-opening force moving the lever from the closed position to an open position relative to the platen (col. 11, lines 1-21; “The pressing member 83 is pushed by the pushing pin 100 so that a pressing force against the biasing force of the spring 90 is transmitted to the connection member 82”).
Regarding claim 23, Kato 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/clamp 80 is rotated toward the platen 2 by pulling force of the spring 90, the outer edge of the wafer W is gripped by 80 and upward motion of the substrate is obstructed, which is shown in Fig. 8B above); and moving the lever to the open position (by upward force F of 100 to rotate 80 away from platen 2) in which the lever does not obstruct the first path of motion of the substrate.
Regarding claim 24, Kato teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) 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 (col. 11, lines 1-21; “The pressing member 83 is pushed by the pushing pin 100 so that a pressing force against the biasing force of the spring 90 is transmitted to the connection member 82”).
Regarding claim 25, Kato teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) separating the substrate from a semiconductor processing component by at least a threshold distance (D) by a hard stop device (lift pin 16) coupled to the platen (col. 13, lines 1-36).
Regarding claim 27, Kato teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) biasing the lever comprises: connecting a spring of the biasing member (90) to a power region (83) of the lever (80, 82, 83).
Regarding claim 28, Kato teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) inhibiting movement of the substrate comprises: disposing at least a portion of a weight region (80) of the lever (80, 82, 83) over the substrate (W).
Regarding claim 29, Kato teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) a method, comprising: inhibiting movement of a substrate on a platen of a semiconductor processing station along a path of motion by a first lever when the first lever is in a first closed position relative to the platen (as shown in Figs. 8B and 11 above, when part 80 of the lever is in closed position, movement of W in upward direction is inhibited), the first lever being pivotally (at 81) coupled to a first mounting member (outer portion of plated 2) coupled to the platen (2); and applying a first lever-opening force (by upward force F of pushing pin 100) to 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, 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 (col. 11, lines 1-21; “The pressing member 83 is pushed by the pushing pin 100 so that a pressing force against the biasing force of the spring 90 is transmitted to the connection member 82”).
Regarding claim 30, Kato teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) inhibiting the movement of the substrate along the path of motion by a second lever (second lever of a second retaining assembly) when the second lever is in a second closed position relative to the platen, the second lever being pivotally coupled (at 81) to a second mounting member (outer portion of plated 2) coupled to the platen; and applying a second lever-opening force (by upward force F of pushing pin 100) 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 (by rotating away from the wafer) 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 (Fig. 3 shows three clamps and Fig. 8 shows two of these clamps similar to each other).
Regarding claim 33, Kato teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) applying the first lever-opening force comprises: applying the first lever-opening force (F) to overcome a first biasing force applied by a first biasing member to the first lever (to rotate part 80 of lever away from the platen 2).
Regarding claim 34, Kato teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) separating the substrate from the semiconductor processing station by at least a threshold distance (D) by a hard stop device (lift pin 16) coupled to the platen (col. 13, lines 1-36).
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.
Claims 26 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Walther (US 20030082891 A1).
Regarding claims 26 and 35, Kato 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 for using device of Kato 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 Kato in view of Gleissner et al. (US 11942356 B2) hereinafter Gleissner.
Regarding claim 36, Kato 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
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art to the claimed invention of claim 10 is Kim.
Kim teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) 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_image11.png
204
738
media_image11.png
Greyscale
However in device of Kim, the wafer is clamped in vertical target position by vacuum and not a lever.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bang Sang Won (KR 20090055712 A) teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) supporting a substrate (W) on a platen (20); biasing a lever (23) of a retainer assembly to a closed position (Fig. 3b) relative to the platen by a biasing member (27), the biasing member being coupled to the lever and to a mounting member; inhibiting movement of the substrate by the lever when the lever is in the closed position (Fig. 3b); a lever engagement member (pressing portion 33) configured to engage the lever (Fig. 2b); and the method comprising: applying, through the lever engagement member, a lever-opening force to the lever to move the lever from the closed position to an open position relative to the platen (Fig. 2b).
PNG
media_image12.png
639
973
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Min Chang-ki (KR 100333362 B1) teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a wafer retaining device, comprising: a platen (4), a lever (6) biased by a biasing member (helical spring 5) to a closed position (clamping wafer 20); and a lever engagement member (7) to force the lever to open position.
PNG
media_image13.png
766
639
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Burggraf et al. (US 20120110825 A1) teaches a wafer clamping device with a hard stop device 12 for separate the substrate 1 from platen 6.
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