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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(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 1, 2, 11- 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application No. 2018/0337073 to Hoffman et al.
In regards to Claim 1, Hoffman teaches a method of treating workpieces or of manufacturing treated workpieces (Claims 1-20) thereby providing: a number of slit pockets 135 each dimensioned to accommodate a single of said workpieces 125 therein, and comprising first loading workpieces subsequently in time and with a time lag between subsequent first loadings into first slit pockets of said number of slit pockets and performing treatment of said workpieces loaded subsequently in time in said first slit pockets (first slip pockets of slots 1-3, [0031-0032]), thereby selecting said first slit pockets by skipping second slit pockets 4-6 between first slit pockets; and, thereafter, second loading workpieces subsequently in time (when the first slit pockets are occupied, [0036]) and with a time lag between subsequent second loadings into second slit pockets of said number of slit pockets having been skipped by said first loading (as when the slots of 103 are full slots 4-6 are then loaded [0036]) and performing treatment of said workpieces loaded subsequently in time in said second slit pockets (thermal treatment, along a certain time, or annealing period [0029]); unloading subsequently in time and with a time lag between subsequent unloadings (unloading based on remaining processing time and transferring substrate out of chamber [0037-0038]), workpieces from said first and from said second slit pockets treatment of said workpieces being unloaded having been completed (as result of finished processing, [0042-0049; 0005-0048], see also Fig. 1, 3 for methodology).
In regards to Claim 2, Hoffman teaches unloading by unloading a workpiece having been completely treated from respective slit pockets of said first and said second slit pockets and performing, directly succeedingly to said unloading, said first and second loadings respectively into said slit pockets having been freed by said unloading [0042-0048].
In regards to Claim 11, Hoffman teaches said treatment is a thermal treatment [0019-0020].
In regards to Claim 12, Hoffman teaches minimizing heat exchange between workpieces just having been loaded and workpieces just being completely treated by said first and second loadings, as it prevents heat loss from the interior volume during transfer [0027].
In regards to Claims 13 and 14, Hoffman teaches that minimizing the extent of handling paths for loading and unloading of workpieces by said unloading a workpiece having been completely treated from respective slit pockets of said first and said second slit pockets and by performing, directly succeedingly to said unloading, said first and second loadings respectively into said slit pockets having been freed by said unloading, as Hoffman teaches sequencing of the elevator for improving throughput and calculating loading and unloading and elevator movement (see Fig. 3; [0016-0048]).
In regards to Claims 15 and 16, Hoffman teaches that number of slit pockets are arranged to form a stack of slit pockets, as shown in Fig. 1.
In regards to Claim 17, Hoffman teaches providing more of said slit pockets than said number of slit pockets, as shown in Fig. 1.
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) 3-10 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2018/0337073 to Hoffman et al.
The teachings of Hoffman are relied upon as set forth in the above 102 rejection.
In regards to Claims 3 and 4, Hoffman teaches selecting said time lag between subsequent first loadings, said time lag between subsequent second loadings and said time lag between subsequent unloadings are calculated and dependent on transfer time, processing time in stations outside of 100, available slots, and annealing/heating time that change to improve heat loss and overall throughput [0027, 0001-0048]. Thus, the time lag between loadings and unloadings are a result effective variable for improving processing efficiency.
Hoffman does not expressly teach that these time lags are equal.
However, because the time lag is a result effective variable that is based on a calculation for loading and unloading based on processing and annealing times and the availability of a slot, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the time lag to improve processing efficiency and thus changed the time lag to be equal.
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. As the teachings of Hoffmans expressly teach the values, and thus the ranges of time lags, are result effective variables for improving processing efficiency such that the optimization is known within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation, with an articulated rationale supporting the rejection, changing the ranges is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
See MPEP 2144.05 II. A, B. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claims 5 and 6, Hoffman teaches time lag is selected in dependency of a workpiece throughput to be achieved, as it is calculated and dependent on transfer time, processing time in stations outside of 100, available slots, and annealing/heating time that change to improve heat loss and overall throughput, as per the rejections of Claims 3 and 4 above.
In regards to Claims 7, 8, 9, and 10, Hoffman teaches comprising selecting a treatment time span for complete treatment of said workpieces and determining said number in dependency of the extent of said time lags and of said selected treatment time span for complete treatment, as it is calculated and dependent on transfer time, processing time in stations outside of 100, available slots, and annealing/heating time that change to improve heat loss and overall throughput, as per the rejections of Claims 3, 4, 5 and 6 above.
In regards to Claim 18, Hoffman teaches selecting a treatment time span for completing treatment of said workpieces and selecting said time lags in dependency of a desired throughput of completely treated workpieces, as it is calculated and dependent on transfer time, processing time in stations outside of 100, available slots, and annealing/heating time that change to improve heat loss and overall throughput, as per the rejections of Claims 3, 4, 5 and 6 above, and further selecting said number to be at least equal to a quotient of said treatment time span and of said time lags, rounded to the next higher integer, as the calculations are used to optimize the availability of time slots, the through put, and the treatment times implicitly.
In regards to Claim 19, Hoffman teaches a method of treating workpieces or of manufacturing treated workpieces (Claims 1-20) thereby providing: a number of slit pockets 135 each dimensioned to accommodate a single of said workpieces 125 therein, and comprising first loading workpieces subsequently in time and with a time lag between subsequent first loadings into first slit pockets of said number of slit pockets and performing treatment of said workpieces loaded subsequently in time in said first slit pockets (first slip pockets of slots 1-3, [0031-0032]), thereby selecting said first slit pockets by skipping second slit pockets 4-6 between first slit pockets; and, thereafter, second loading workpieces subsequently in time (when the first slit pockets are occupied, [0036]) and with a time lag between subsequent second loadings into second slit pockets of said number of slit pockets having been skipped by said first loading (as when the slots of 103 are full slots 4-6 are then loaded [0036]) and performing treatment of said workpieces loaded subsequently in time in said second slit pockets (thermal treatment, along a certain time, or annealing period [0029]); unloading subsequently in time and with a time lag between subsequent unloadings (unloading based on remaining processing time and transferring substrate out of chamber [0037-0038]), workpieces from said first and from said second slit pockets treatment of said workpieces being unloaded having been completed (as result of finished processing, [0042-0049; 0005-0048], see also Fig. 1, 3 for methodology).
Hoffman teaches that minimizing the extent of handling paths for loading and unloading of workpieces by said unloading a workpiece having been completely treated from respective slit pockets of said first and said second slit pockets and by performing, directly succeedingly to said unloading, said first and second loadings respectively into said slit pockets having been freed by said unloading, as Hoffman teaches sequencing of the elevator for improving throughput and calculating loading and unloading and elevator movement (see Fig. 3; [0016-0048]).
Hoffman teaches selecting said time lag between subsequent first loadings, said time lag between subsequent second loadings and said time lag between subsequent unloadings are calculated and dependent on transfer time, processing time in stations outside of 100, available slots, and annealing/heating time that change to improve heat loss and overall throughput [0027, 0001-0048]. Thus, the time lag between loadings and unloadings are a result effective variable for improving processing efficiency.
Hoffman does not expressly teach that these time lags are equal.
However, because the time lag is a result effective variable that is based on a calculation for loading and unloading based on processing and annealing times and the availability of a slot, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the time lag to improve processing efficiency and thus changed the time lag to be equal.
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. As the teachings of Hoffmans expressly teach the values, and thus the ranges of time lags, are result effective variables for improving processing efficiency such that the optimization is known within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation, with an articulated rationale supporting the rejection, changing the ranges is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
See MPEP 2144.05 II. A, B. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. United States Patent Application No. 2006/0223334 to Saki which is drawn to processing times and transfers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716