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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-13 and 16-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/23/26.
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 14-15 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 14 introduces “a process space” at line 6. It cannot be determined if this is the previously introduced “first process space” or “second process space”, or a different process space altogether.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7 and 14 (14 as understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Woo (KR 20220137596 A), which discloses:
1. A humidity control device in a process space comprising:
an injection module (10, 20, 30) arranged in a second process space (120, 140) maintained at second humidity lower than first humidity within a first process space (the room in which the apparatus is located, since the injection module injects “Clean Dry Air”) in which processing for a wafer is performed, and configured to inject a gas for forming an air curtain onto a first door (111) through which the wafer enters and exits and which is connected to the second process space (e.g., see FIG 1);
a signal generation module (70) configured to generate an injection signal for the injection module to inject the gas; and
an injection control module (71) configured to control the injection module to form the air curtain lowering an amount of humidity flowing into the second process space through a space opened by the first door by injecting the gas, when the injection signal is generated (e.g., see Abstract).
2. The humidity control device of claim 1, wherein the injection module is further configured to inject the gas for forming the air curtain to a side surface of the wafer (as the wafer exits the door).
4. The humidity control device of claim 1, wherein the injection module comprises a first injector and a second injector arranged to face each other and each configured to inject the gas onto the first door (see the embodiment of FIG 16, which contains two blowers 20 that can be considered to face one another).
7. The humidity control device of claim 1, wherein the injection control module is further configured to control a rotation of the injection module (it controls rotation of the blower) to change an injection direction of the injection module (intended effect met in that the flow changes from no flow with no direction, to downwardly-directed flow).
14. A humidity control system comprising:
a first process space (the room in which the apparatus of FIG 1 is located) in which processing for a wafer is performed and which is maintained at first humidity;
a second process space (120, 140) connected to the first process space and maintained at second humidity lower than the first humidity (the second process space is fed with “Clean Dry Air”); and
a humidity control device in a process space comprising an injection module (10, 20, 30) installed in the second process space and configured to inject a gas for forming an air curtain onto a first door (111) through which the wafer enters and exits and which is connected to the second process space,
a signal generation module (70) configured to generate an injection signal for the injection module to inject the gas, and
an injection control module (71) configured to control the injection module to inject the gas to form the air curtain lowering an amount of humidity flowing into the second process space through a space opened by the first door when the injection signal is generated.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Lin (US 2020/0234988), which discloses:
18. A humidity control method in a process space comprising:
completing a preparation for transferring a wafer located within a first process space to a second process space connected to the first process space (steps 901, 902);
determining opening of a first door connected to the second process space and generating information regarding the opening of the first door (steps 903, 904);
injecting a gas for forming an air curtain onto the first door before the first door is opened (step 903);
opening the first door (steps 903, 904); and
transferring the wafer to the second process space through a space opened by the first door (considered clearly met).
19. The humidity control method of claim 18, further comprising: closing the first door; and stopping injecting the gas onto the first door (step 905).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo in view of Lin.
Woo discloses the invention as claimed with exception to the information processing module that determines opening of the first door. However Lin teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filing date to use such an information processing module (e.g., see steps 903-906). To coordinate the operation of Woo’s blower with the opening of the door, it would have been obvious to use an information processing module as claimed by Applicant and as taught by Lin.
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo in view of Araki (JP 2013191689 A).
Regarding claim 5, Woo discloses the invention as claimed with exception to the third and fourth injector spaced apart from the first and second injector. This difference is seen as amounting to replicating the dual-blower assembly of FIG 16 for a second door. Araki teaches that it was known in the art to replicate a similar blower assembly for a second door (blower assembly 76a is replicated at 81a to move the substrates through both front and back doors of the chamber). To move substrates through both the front and back of Woo’s chamber, it would have been obvious to replicate Woo’s dual blower assembly and door on the other side of Woo’s chamber, thereby resulting in a third and fourth injector.
Regarding claim 8, see the obviousness analysis of claim 5. Further, the injection control module is configured to control a rotation of at least one of the first to fourth injectors (it controls a rotation speed of the fan/blower).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Araki.
Lin discloses the invention as claimed with exception to performing the steps in regard to a second door. However Araki teaches that it was known to use a processing chamber with a second door, and it would have been obvious to use Lin’s method on a processing space having a second door to allow the substrates to be moved efficiently towards a second robot on the other side of the chamber.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 15 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 12,334,363 discloses a similar purge control system with an air curtain control assembly that operates according to a displacement value of a door. US 11,735,455 discloses modifying an angular direction of air curtain flow.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM M MCCALISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 7am to 6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CRAIG SCHNEIDER, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/WILLIAM M MCCALISTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
5/28/26
Prosecution Insights