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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II (claims 8-13) in the reply filed on 01/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7, 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention I (process), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/24/2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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 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:
Cooling unit (cooling supply means which includes cooling gas supply source, cooling gas supply line, valve, para. [0043-0044]) in at least claims 8-13.
Heating unit (upper heat source which can include any of a microwave generator, laser generator, infrared lamp, para. [0047], [0049]) in at least claims 8-13.
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 § 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.
(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) 8, 9, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20120193071 to Tsunekawa.
Claims 1-7: (Withdrawn).
Claim 8: Tsunekawa discloses a substrate treatment apparatus comprising: a chamber (1 vacuum chamber], Fig. 4, 1) having a treatment space (inside 1) therein; a support member (41/10/9 [substrate supporting base]) which is disposed in an internal space of the treatment space (inside 1) and on which a substrate (5 [substrate]) to be treated is seated, the support member (41/10/9) being provided with a plurality of gas discharge holes (42 [ grooves], para. [0102]);
a lift pin (13 [lift pins]) configured to lift the substrate (5) from the support member (41/10/9, para. [0065]); a cooling unit (43/41/42) configured to cool the substrate by discharging a cooling gas through the gas discharge holes (42, para. [0102]); a heating unit (2 [halogen lamp]) configured to heat the substrate (5) by supplying thermal energy to the treatment space (para. [0061]); and a controller (1000 [control part], Fig. 3) configured to control the lift pin, the cooling unit, and the heating unit (para. [0073-0075]).
Claim 9: Tsunekawa discloses wherein the controller (1000, Fig. 3, 4, Tsunekawa]) is configured to control the lift pin (13) so that a substrate treatment process by the heating unit and the cooling unit is performed in a state in which the substrate is spaced apart from an upper surface of the support member (41, 10, 9, para. [0075, 0081]).
Claim 12: Tsunekawa discloses wherein, when the heating unit (2, Fig. 1, 4, Tsunekawa) heats the substrate (5), the controller (1000) adjusts a separation distance between the substrate (5) and the upper surface of the support member (upper surface of 41/10/9) by controlling a lifting height of the lift pin (13, para. [0103]).
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) 10, 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunekawa as applied to claims 8, 9, 12 above, and further in view of US 20040035847 to Gat.
Claim 10: Tsunekawa discloses wherein the controller (1000, Fig. 4, Tsunekawa) is configured to control the cooling unit (43/41/42), thereby controlling a discharge amount of the cooling gas to the substrate (para. [0102]).
However Tsunekawa does not explicitly disclose and controlling a temperature of the cooling gas.
Gat discloses a gas that is being fed through gas passage (68, Fig. 4) including a plurality of exits (Fig. 4) wherein the temperature of the cooling gas is controlled by a cooling fluid being circulated through the channel (66, para. [0055], para. [0021]) for the purpose of selectively cooling wafers within a thermal processing chamber (para. [0056]).
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 temperature control of cooling gas as taught by Gat with motivation to selectively cooling wafers within a thermal processing chamber.
Claim 11: The apparatus of Tsunekawa in view of Gat discloses when the cooling unit (43/41/42, Fig. 4, Tsunekawa) cools the substrate, the controller (1000) adjusts a separation distance between the substrate (5) and the upper surface of the support member (41/9/10) by controlling a lifting height of the lift pin (13, para. [0103]).
Claim 13: The apparatus of Tsunekawa in view of Gat discloses wherein the heating unit (2, Fig. 4, Tsunekawa) comprises any one of a microwave generator, a laser generator, and an infrared lamp (para. [0061]).
Claims 14-20: (Withdrawn).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20240203699 discloses a cooling plate (400b, Fig. 6) and a heating unit (700) with lifting pins (408a) (para. [0048-0049]) and same assignee. US 20230215706 discloses a support having a cooling member (1232, Fig. 2), heater (1225), lifting pins (1900), and controller (not shown, para. [0091]) to control heating and cooling while lifting the substrate via the pins (para. [0084])
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