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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5 is/are amended.
Applicant’s arguments regarding amendments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments based on the amendments do not apply to the current rejection. The amendments in the claims are rejected by previously relied on references below.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
First contact member (contact surface, para. [0043]) in claims 1-5.
Second contact member (contact surface, para. [0043]) in claims 1-5.
Third contact member (contact surface, para. [0043]) in claims 1-5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 201118184 to Hirayama in view of in view of US 20180350632 to Kikumoto.
Claim 1: Hirayama discloses a centering device (2 [centering unit], Fig. 1) for positioning a substrate (W [wafer]) on a substrate support (1 [wafer rotation unit]) such that a center of the disk-shaped substrate (W) placed in a horizontal posture on an upper surface of the substrate support (1) is aligned with a center of the substrate support (1), the device comprising:
a first contact member (one end 36 [support member], Fig. 1) movable in a horizontal plane in a first horizontal direction from a first reference position that is separated from the center of the substrate support (P [center of 1]) by a reference distance longer than a radius of the substrate (W) toward the center of the substrate support (para. [0048]), the first horizontal direction being a direction toward the center of the substrate support (P, Fig. 3);
a second contact member (another end 36) movable in the horizontal plane in a second horizontal direction from a second reference position that is inclined by a first angle with respect to a virtual line (virtual line is line crossing through P, G from 39 towards 36’s) extending in the first horizontal direction from the center of the substrate support (P, Fig. 3) and separated from the center of the substrate support by the reference distance on a side opposite to the first contact member (one end 36) with respect to the center of the substrate support (P), the second horizontal direction being different from a direction toward the center of the substrate support and extending toward the substrate (Fig. 3);
a third contact member (39 [support member], Fig. 1) movable in the horizontal plane in a third horizontal direction from a third reference position that is inclined by a second angle with respect to a virtual line and separated from the center of the substrate support by the reference distance on a side opposite to the first contact member (one end 36) with respect to the center of the substrate support (P) and opposite to the second contact member (another end 36) with respect to the virtual line, the third horizontal direction being different from a direction toward the center of the substrate support and extending toward the substrate (Fig. 3);
a moving mechanism (“forward and backward drive device” [not shown], but disclosed in para. [0044]) configured to move the first contact member (one end 36), the second contact member (another end 36) and the third contact member (39) respectively in the first horizontal direction, the second horizontal direction and the third horizontal direction (Fig. 3); and a controller (8 [device control unit]) configured to perform an aligning the substrate with respect to the substrate support by controlling the moving mechanism (para. [0044], Fig. 2), wherein the first angle is in a range of 40° or larger and 60° or smaller (see Fig. 3 where the angle is in this range), the second angle is in a range of 40° or larger and 60° or smaller (see Fig. 3 where the angle is in this range), and
the controller (8) is configured to control the moving mechanism (“forward and backward drive device”) to repeat minute movements of moving the first contact member, the second contact member and the third contact member respectively by a first movement amount, a second movement amount and a third movement amount until contact of all of the first contact member (one end 36), the second contact member (another end 36) and the third contact member (39) with the substrate (W) is completed so that distances of the first contact member, the second contact member and the third contact member from the center of the substrate support (P) are kept equal (para. [0046-0051]).
However Hirayama does not explicitly disclose repeating movements simultaneously.
Regarding repeating movements simultaneously, Kikumoto teaches contact members together (simultaneously) moving and equal (para. [0237], [0243], [0249], [0277]), for the purpose of detecting with high precision (para. [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitation above as taught by Kikumoto with motivation to detect with high precision.
Claim 2: Hirayama discloses wherein: the second horizontal direction and the third horizontal direction are directions parallel to the virtual line (Fig. 3).
Claim 3: Hirayama discloses wherein: the third reference position is line-symmetrical with the second reference position with respect to the virtual line (Fig. 3).
However Hirayama does not explicitly disclose and the second movement amount and the third movement amount are equal.
However the apparatus of Hirayama teaches that the members are all connected to the forward/backward drive source (32, para. [0044]) and connected and controlled by the control unit (8) and they move until a stopping position determined by a pressure when the rollers (36 and/or 39) contacts and locks against the outer edge of the Wafer for the purpose of preventing damage to the wafer (para. [0050]). Thus it is obvious that the movement amounts can be equal or unequal.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the options of equal or unequal amounts of movement as taught by Hirayama with motivation to prevent damage to the wafer.
Claim 5: Hirayama discloses a substrate processing apparatus, comprising: a substrate support having an upper surface and being configured to support a substrate in a horizontal posture; the centering device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above) ; a suction unit (multiple intake ports, and 21 [negative pressure source] of 11 [vacuum chuck section], Fig. 1) configured to suck and hold the substrate (W) on the substrate support (1) by exhausting air between the substrate (W) positioned by the centering device and the substrate support (1, para. [0033]);
a rotary driver (16 [drive motor], Fig. 1) configured to rotate the substrate support (1) sucking and holding the substrate (W) about a center of the substrate support (P).
However Hirayama does not disclose and a processing liquid supply mechanism configured to supply a processing liquid to a peripheral edge part of the substrate rotated about the center of the substrate support integrally with the substrate support.
Kikumoto discloses a processing liquid supply mechanism (22/25 [chemical liquid nozzle]/[nozzle moving unit], Fig. 1) configured to supply a processing liquid to a peripheral edge part of the substrate rotated about the center of the substrate support (9 [spin chuck]) integrally with the substrate support (para. [0108-0109]) for the purpose of allowing chemical liquid to be supplied uniformly to a bevel region of a substrate (para. [0128]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the liquid supply mechanism as taught by Kikumoto with motivation to allow chemical liquid to be supplied uniformly to a bevel region of a substrate.
Regarding repeating movements simultaneously, Kikumoto teaches contact members together (simultaneously) moving and equal (para. [0237], [0243], [0249], [0277]), for the purpose of detecting with high precision (para. [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitation above as taught by Kikumoto with motivation to detect with high precision.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 201118184 to Hirayama in view of further in view of US 20180350632 to Kikumoto.
Claim 4: Hirayama discloses a centering method for positioning a substrate on a substrate support such that a center of the disk-shaped substrate placed in a horizontal posture on an upper surface of the substrate support is aligned with a center of the substrate support, the method comprising:
placing the substrate (W [wafer], Fig. 1) on the upper surface of the substrate support (1 [wafer rotation unit]) with a first contact member (one end 36 [support member]) located at a first reference position separated from the center of the substrate support (1) by a reference distance longer than a radius of the substrate (Fig. 3), a second contact member (another end 36) located at a second reference position inclined by a first angle with respect to a virtual line (virtual line is line crossing through P, G from 39 towards 36’s) extending through the center of the substrate support (P [center of 1]) from the first reference position
and separated from the center of the substrate support (P) by the reference distance on a side opposite to the first contact member (one end 36) with respect to the center of the substrate support (P) and a third contact member (39) located at a third reference position inclined by a second angle and separated from the center of the substrate support (P) by the reference distance on a side opposite to the first contact member with respect to the center of the substrate support (P, see Fig. 3) and opposite to the second contact member (another end 36) with respect to the virtual line (Fig. 3);
repeating minute movements of moving the first contact member (one end 36) in a first horizontal direction from the first reference position toward the center of the substrate support (toward P) by a first movement amount, moving the second contact member (another end 36) in a second horizontal direction different from a direction toward the center of the substrate support (toward P, para. [0046-0055])
and extending toward the substrate (W) from the second reference position by a second movement amount and moving the third contact member (39) in a third horizontal direction different from a direction toward the center of the substrate support (toward P) and stopping the minute movements if sandwiching of the substrate by the first contact member, the second contact member and the third contact member is confirmed while the minute movements are repeated (para. [0044-0050]), wherein the first angle is in a range of 40° or larger and 60° or smaller (see Fig. 3 where the angle is in this range), and the second angle is in a range of 40° or larger and 60° or smaller (see Fig. 3 where the angle is in this range).
However Hirayama does not explicitly disclose and extending toward the substrate from the third reference position by a third movement amount so that distances of the first contact member, the second contact member and the third contact member from the center of the substrate support are kept equal with the substrate placed horizontally movably on the upper surface of the substrate support.
However the apparatus of Hirayama teaches that the members are all connected to the forward/backward drive source (32, para. [0044]) and connected and controlled by the control unit (8) and they move until a stopping position determined by a pressure when the rollers (36 and/or 39) contacts and locks against the outer edge of the Wafer for the purpose of preventing damage to the wafer (para. [0050]). Thus it is obvious that the movement amounts can be equal or unequal.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the options of equal or unequal amounts of movement as taught by Hirayama with motivation to prevent damage to the wafer.
However Hirayama does not explicitly disclose repeating movements simultaneously.
Regarding repeating movements simultaneously, Kikumoto teaches contact members together (simultaneously) moving and equal (para. [0237], [0243], [0249], [0277]), for the purpose of detecting with high precision (para. [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitation above as taught by Kikumoto with motivation to detect with high precision.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20230253231 (Fig. 3), US 20240258144 (Fig. 3), US 20250372431 (Fig. 3), US 20240038565 (Fig. 3), all disclose sliders with contact members similar to the claimed invention. JP H077069 A discloses a centering mechanism (11) with a detecting sensor (4, Fig. 7).
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 Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights