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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) The wafer and substrate are synonym, thus the “a single-wafer substrate transport mechanism” across the claim list would have a better form if amended to be:
“a single-wafer transport mechanism”.
(2) Followings would have a better form if amended:
The “a substrate holder that is provided at… and is configured to receive…” of Claim 1, to be “a substrate holder provided at… and configured to receive…”,
The “a posture turning unit that is provided at… and is configured to turn…” of Claim 1, to be “a posture turning unit provided at… and configured to turn…”,
The “a second batch substrate transport mechanism that is movable between… and is configured to receive…”, to be “a second batch substrate transport mechanism configured to move between… and configured to receive…”,
The “an upper chuck and a lower chuck capable of radially supporting…” of Claim 1, to be “an upper chuck and a lower chuck configured to radially support…”.
(3) The “wherein the two horizontal chucks each have” of Claim 2 should be “wherein the two horizontal chucks, each has” or “wherein each of the two horizontal chucks has”.
(4) The “chucks each include”, “chucks each house” and “chucks each take… and move” of Claim 3 should be:
“chucks, each includes”, “chucks, each houses” and “chucks, each takes… and moves”.
Further, the examiner notices the “second V-shaped holding grooves” in the claim 3, therefore, it is respectfully requested to amend the “V-shaped holding grooves” of Claim 2 to be “first V-shaped holding grooves”.
(5) The “in a horizontal first direction”, “in a horizontal second direction” and “the first direction” of Claim 9 should be:
“in a first horizontal direction”, “in a second horizontal direction” and “the first horizontal direction”.
(6) Claim 1 recites followings in a manner of Hierarchy:
“a posture turning mechanism configured to turn a posture of the substrates in the vertical posture, on which the batch treatment is performed, to the horizontal posture,
the posture turning mechanism including:
a substrate holder that is provided at a position accessible by the first batch substrate transport mechanism and is configured to receive the substrates in the vertical posture, on which the batch treatment is performed, from the first batch substrate transport mechanism collectively and hold the substrates,
a posture turning unit that is provided at a position accessible by the single-wafer substrate transport mechanism and is configured to turn a posture of the substrates from vertical to horizontal collectively, and
a second batch substrate transport mechanism that is movable between the substrate holder and the posture turning unit and is configured to receive the substrates in the vertical posture held by the substrate holder and deliver the substrates to the posture turning unit,
the second batch substrate transport mechanism including:
two horizontal chucks configured to hold the substrates in the vertical posture while radially supporting two lateral side portions on an outer edge of each of the substrates in the vertical posture held by the substrate holder,
the posture turning unit including:
an upper chuck and a lower chuck capable of radially supporting an upper portion and a lower portion on the outer edge of each of the substrates in the vertical posture held by the two horizontal chucks to receive the substrates in the vertical posture from the two horizontal chucks, and
an upper and lower chuck rotation unit configured to rotate the upper chuck and the lower chuck around a horizontal axis orthogonal to an alignment direction of the substrates in the vertical posture held by the upper chuck and the lower chuck for turning a posture of the substrates received from the two horizontal chucks from vertical to horizontal, and
the single-wafer substrate transport mechanism taking the substrates, held by the upper chuck and the lower chuck, in the horizontal posture one by one, and transporting the taken substrates to the single-wafer processing chamber”.
For the purpose of clarification, it would have a better form if the arrangement is amended to be reorganized with “wherein” phrase, such as:
“a posture turning mechanism configured to turn a posture of the substrates in the vertical posture, on which the batch treatment is performed, to the horizontal posture,
the posture turning mechanism including:
a substrate holder that is provided at a position accessible by the first batch substrate transport mechanism and is configured to receive the substrates in the vertical posture, on which the batch treatment is performed, from the first batch substrate transport mechanism collectively and hold the substrates,
a posture turning unit that is provided at a position accessible by the single-wafer substrate transport mechanism and is configured to turn a posture of the substrates from vertical to horizontal collectively, and
a second batch substrate transport mechanism that is movable between the substrate holder and the posture turning unit and is configured to receive the substrates in the vertical posture held by the substrate holder and deliver the substrates to the posture turning unit,
the second batch substrate transport mechanism including:
two horizontal chucks configured to hold the substrates in the vertical posture while radially supporting two lateral side portions on an outer edge of each of the substrates in the vertical posture held by the substrate holder,
the posture turning unit including:
an upper chuck and a lower chuck capable of radially supporting an upper portion and a lower portion on the outer edge of each of the substrates in the vertical posture held by the two horizontal chucks to receive the substrates in the vertical posture from the two horizontal chucks, and
an upper and lower chuck rotation unit configured to rotate the upper chuck and the lower chuck around a horizontal axis orthogonal to an alignment direction of the substrates in the vertical posture held by the upper chuck and the lower chuck for turning a posture of the substrates received from the two horizontal chucks from vertical to horizontal, and
wherein the single-wafer substrate transport mechanism takes the substrates, held by the upper chuck and the lower chuck, in the horizontal posture one by one, and transports the substrates to the single-wafer processing chamber”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim interpretation
(1) 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
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. The “batch substrate transport mechanism”, “batch substrate transport mechanism”, and “posture turning mechanism configured to…” and the subset units of the posture turning mechanism of Claim 1, because of the term “mechanism”, as a substitute for “means”, that is a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(1) The “the substrates” in “A substrate treating apparatus for successively performing batch treatment for processing a plurality of substrates collectively and single-wafer treatment for processing the substrates one by one” of Claim 1 is not clear.
Does it mean the “plurality of substrates” processed by the batch treatment or different substrates?
Further the applicants separately use “the plurality of substrates” and “the substrates” in a later portion of Claim 1, thus it is not clear they are the same or different.
If the applicants intend to recite the same substrates, for the purpose of consistency, it is respectfully requested to amend the all “the substrates” across the claim list to be “the plurality of substrates”.
(2) The “the substrates in a vertical posture” and “the substrates in a horizontal posture” in “configured to transport the substrates in a vertical posture… configured to transport the substrates in a horizontal posture” of Claim 1 are not clear.
Does the “the substrates in a vertical posture” mean that each of the substrates stands in a vertical posture then they are arranged in a horizontal direction? Or each of the substrates is in a horizontal posture then all the substrates are stacked in a vertical direction?
Similarly, does the “the substrates in a horizontal posture” means that each of the substrates is in a horizontal posture then all the substrates are stacked in a vertical direction? Or each of the substrates stands in a vertical posture then they are arranged in a horizontal direction?
Depending on the interpretation, the structural position is critically differentiated, thus the metes and bounds cannot be clearly determined.
It is respectfully requested to clarify posture of each substrate.
(3) The “from the first batch substrate transport mechanism collectively and hold the substrates” of Claim 1 is not clear, because of the “and hold the substrates”.
Does it mean the “the first batch substrate transport mechanism” holds the substrates? Or “the substrate holder” holds the substrates?
(4) The “a posture of the substrates from vertical to horizontal collectively” of Claim 1 is not clear.
Claim 1 recites a vertical posture and a horizontal posture in the earlier recited limitations, thus it is not clear, the “a posture” is different from the recited vertical and horizontal postures or the same.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim recites the broad recitation “a posture”, and the claim also recites “a vertical posture and a horizontal posture” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
(5) The “an upper chuck and a lower chuck capable of radially supporting an upper portion and a lower portion on the outer edge of each of the substrates in the vertical posture held by the two horizontal chucks to receive the substrates in the vertical posture from the two horizontal chucks” of Claim 1 is not clear, because of the last “to receive the substrates in the vertical posture from the two horizontal chucks”.
It is not clear which part of the sentence is modified by the “to receive the substrates in the vertical posture from the two horizontal chucks”?
If the applicants intend to mean that the upper and lower chucks receive them, it is respectfully to amend it to be “and receiving the substrates…”.
Or, as discussed in the claim objection above, it also can have a form of “and configured to receive the substrates…”
(6) The “and an upper and lower chuck rotation unit configured to rotate the upper chuck and the lower chuck around a horizontal axis orthogonal to an alignment direction of the substrates in the vertical posture held by the upper chuck and the lower chuck for turning a posture of the substrates received from the two horizontal chucks from vertical to horizontal, and the single-wafer substrate transport mechanism taking the substrates, held by the upper chuck and the lower chuck, in the horizontal posture one by one, and transporting the taken substrates to the single-wafer processing chamber” of Claim 1 is not clear.
First, the “an alignment direction of the substrates in the vertical posture” is not clear. As discussed in the item (2) above, the arrangement of the substrates is not clearly defined, thus the “alignment direction” cannot be clearly determined. Further, an axis orthogonal to a horizontal axis is only a vertical axis, thus it is not clear what difference is required between the alignment direction and the vertical direction.
Second, the “a posture of the substrates received from the two horizontal chucks from vertical to horizontal” raises the same issue as the item (4) above.
(7) The “a thickness of the substrates” of Claim 2 is not clear. Does it mean whole thickness of the substrates or a thickness of each substrate?
(8) Claim 4 recites “an alignment direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be examined inclusive of “the alignment direction”.
(9) The “turns a posture of the substrates to horizontal” of Claim 4 raises the same issue as the item (4) above. The limitation will be examined inclusive of “turns the substrates to the horizontal posture”.
(10) The “the second batch substrate transport mechanism can switch the two horizontal chucks between a first pattern and a second pattern” of Claim 11 is not clear, because of the term “can”.
The term “can” merely defines a capability, in other words, even though the apparatus does not have an actual configuration, when the apparatus is merely capable of performing, it sufficiently meets the claim requirement.
It is respectfully requested to amend it to be:
“the second batch substrate transport mechanism configured to switch the two horizontal chucks between a first pattern and a second pattern”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
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 on 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718