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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or are considered moot in view of a new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant argues that Okita, Ngo, Schober, and Hennenfent do not teach or suggest that each centering lug comprises a vertical section directly connecting to a horizontal region of the substantially circumferential supporting surface. However, as indicated below, Okita’s embodiment, as exemplified by figs 25B-C, discloses a vertical section directly connected to a horizontal region of the substantially circumferential supporting surface.
Applicant also argues that the element of Schober indicated as a "vertical section" on page 16 of the present Office Action does not teach or suggest these recited elements of claim 1 because the "vertical section" is not vertical and does not directly connect to a horizontal region of the substantially circumferential supporting surface, as recited in claim 1. This argument is moot because Schober is no longer relied upon in the new grounds of rejection, as indicated below.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the radius", however claims 1 and 9 do not recite “a radius”. Proper correction is required.
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 1-16 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 1 recites “…a circumferential or substantially circumferential supporting surface…”. Substantially, with regards to how circumferential the supporting surface is, makes it so that the metes and bounds of the claim limitation are indefinite, as it is unclear how close to circumferential the supporting surface is.
Claims 2-7, 9-16 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-7, 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okita et al (U.S. PGPUB no. 20120006489) in view of Ngo et al (US Patent no. 10062598, hereinafter “Ngo”).
Regarding claim 1, Okita discloses a substrate carrier for receiving and transporting several substrates, wherein the substrate carrier comprises one or more supporting plates (supporting plate defined as tray 15, Fig 4C, shown below, [0090], details of the embodiment used in this rejection are shown in Figs 25A-C [0153], [0155]), wherein each of the one or more supporting plates comprises several openings for receiving one substrate each (openings defined as substrate containing holes 19(A-I) [0090] Figs 4A, 4B, and 4C), wherein each opening comprises a circumferential inner wall (defined as hole wall 15d [0157] Fig 25C shown below) and a circumferential supporting edge (defined as front end surface 74c [0094] Fig 25B shown below) forming a circumferential or substantially circumferential supporting surface for a substrate (defined as upper surface 74a [0157] Fig 25C), wherein each opening further comprises several centering lugs (defined as protruding sections 76A to 76C (equivalents of 21) [0157]-[0158] Fig 25C), each of which forming a bevel or curved surface extending from an opening edge defined by the circumferential inner wall of the opening and a top surface of the supporting plate to the substantially circumferential supporting surface (opening edge defined as the edge where 15b and 15d meet and as shown in Fig 25C, the centering lugs 76A-76C form a bevel or curved surface extending from the opening edge to the supporting surface 74a), and each of the several centering lugs comprises a vertical section directly connecting to a horizontal region of the substantially circumferential supporting surface (vertical section defined as the section 76a which as shown in Figs 25B-C has a vertical height beginning at surface 74a and ending at the top surface of 76a, which is the supporting surface, is directly connected to the vertical section and also defines a horizontal region).
Okita fails to teach wherein the substantially circumferential supporting surface comprises a recess in the region of each centering lug.
PNG
media_image1.png
297
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
353
748
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
457
730
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ngo is also concerned with substrate carriers and teaches a recess (gaps 124 in support surface 122 of carrier 120, Fig. 1a, allow for sections of the underside of the substrate to not contact the carrier allowing for more heat to be radiated from susceptor 120 without conductive heating at the substrate edge, col. 3 lines 30-53).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a recess like that of Ngo to the support surface of the substrate carrier of Okita, including in the region of each centering lug, in order to reduce conductive heat from the carrier to the substrate, as taught by Ngo.
PNG
media_image4.png
224
264
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Okita, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Okita, as modified, also discloses wherein the one or more supporting plates define a plane, and wherein the angle between the bevel of each centering lug and the plane is between 45° and 80° (plane formed via the surface 15b, the angle here shown in Fig 25B above as α which is exemplified as being 75° in [0094] and this angle would also apply to the centering lug region of 76A-C as taught above).
Regarding claim 3, Okita, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Okita, as modified, also discloses wherein the centering lugs protrude a first distance from the circumferential inner wall toward the opening (as seen above in Fig. 25C, 76A-C protrude a first distance from the inner wall 15d towards the opening 19), and wherein the inner wall has a height measured from the supporting edge (the inner wall 15d can also be seen in Fig. 25C as having a height from the supporting edge 74c). However, Okita does not explicitly disclose wherein the ratio between the first distance and the height is between 0.6 and 1.6.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that the ratio between the first distance and the height being between 0.6 and 1.6 would result in a difference in function of the Okita device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the substrate carrier of Okita would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended given the claimed ratio between the first distance and the height being between 0.6 and 1.6. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, offering another acceptable range of the ratio being between 0.7 and 1.3 and stating that a ratio close to 1 is particularly preferrable (pg 2 para 5) and therefore applicant has assigned no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratio between the first distance and the height of the Okita device to be between 0.6 and 1.6 as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 4, Okita, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 3 as described above. Okita, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the first distance is between 2.4 mm and 4 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that the first distance being between 2.4 mm and 4 mm would result in a difference in function of the Okita device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the substrate carrier of Okita would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended given the claimed first distance being between 2.4 mm and 4 mm. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, offering another acceptable range of the first distance being between 2.6mm and 3.5mm and therefore applicant has assigned no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first distance of the Okita device to be between 2.4mm and 4mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 5, Okita, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 3 as described above. Okita, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the height is between 2.5 mm and 4.0 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that the height being between 2.5 mm and 4.0 mm would result in a difference in function of the Okita device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the substrate carrier of Okita would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended given the claimed height being between 2.5 mm and 4.0 mm. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, offering another acceptable range of the height as between 2.6 mm and 3.5 mm and therefore applicant has assigned no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the height of the Okita device to be between 2.5 mm and 4.0 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 6, Okita, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Okita, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the width of the circumferential supporting surface is at most 1.5 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that the width of the circumferential supporting surface being at most 1.5 mm would result in a difference in function of the Okita device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the substrate carrier of Okita would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended given the claimed width of the circumferential supporting surface being at most 1.5 mm. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, offering another acceptable range of the width of the circumferential supporting surface being at most 1 mm, and another particularly preferable range of at most 0.8 mm, and therefore applicant has assigned no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Okita to have a width of the circumferential supporting surface being at most 1.5 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 7, Okita, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Okita, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the recess has a depth of 0.1 to 0.2 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that the recess having a depth of 0.1 mm to 0.2 mm would result in a difference in function of the Okita device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the substrate carrier of Okita would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended given the claimed recess depth of 0.1 mm to 0.2 mm. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, and therefore applicant has assigned no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the depth of the recess of the Okita device to be between 0.1 mm and 0.2 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 10, Okita, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Okita, as modified, also discloses wherein the one or more supporting plates define a plane, and wherein the angle between the bevel of each centering lug and the plane is between 55° and 75° (plane formed via the surface 15b, the angle here shown in Fig 25B above as α which is exemplified as being 75° in [0094] and this angle would also apply to the centering lug region of 76A-C as taught above).
Regarding claim 11, Okita, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 3 as described above. Okita, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the ratio between the first distance and the height is between 0.7 and 1.3.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that the ratio between the first distance and the height being between 0.7 and 1.3 would result in a difference in function of the Okita device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the substrate carrier of Okita would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended given the claimed ratio between the first distance and the height being between 0.7 and 1.3. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, stating that a ratio close to 1 is particularly preferrable (pg 2 para 5) and therefore applicant has assigned no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratio between the first distance and the height of the Okita device to be between 0.7 and 1.3 as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 12, Okita, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 3 as described above. Okita, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the first distance is between 2.6 mm and 3.5 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that the first distance being between 2.6 mm and 3.5 mm would result in a difference in function of the Okita device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the substrate carrier of Okita would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended given the claimed first distance being between 2.6 mm and 3.5 mm. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, and therefore applicant has assigned no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first distance of the Okita device to be between 2.6 mm and 3.5 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 13, Okita, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 3 as described above. Okita, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the height is between 2.8 mm and 3.5 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that the height being between 2.8 mm and 3.5 mm would result in a difference in function of the Okita device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the substrate carrier of Okita would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended given the claimed height being between 2.8 mm and 3.5 mm. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, and therefore applicant has assigned no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the height of the Okita device to be between 2.8 mm and 3.5 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 14, Okita, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Okita, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the width of the circumferential supporting surface is at most 1 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that the width of the circumferential supporting surface being at most 1 mm would result in a difference in function of the Okita device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the substrate carrier of Okita would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended given the claimed width of the circumferential supporting surface being at most 1 mm. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, offering another acceptable range of the width of the circumferential supporting surface being particularly preferable range of at most 0.8 mm, and therefore applicant has assigned no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Okita to have a width of the circumferential supporting surface being at most 1 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 15, Okita, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Okita, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the vertical section has a height of 0.3 mm to 0.6 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that the height of the vertical section being between 0.3 mm and 0.6 mm would result in a difference in function of the Okita device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the substrate carrier of Okita would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended given the claimed height of the vertical section being between 0.3 mm and 0.6 mm. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, and therefore applicant has assigned no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Okita to have the height of the vertical section being between 0.3 mm and 0.6 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okina, as modified above, further in view of Hennenfent (US Patent no. 3951395, hereinafter “Hennenfent”).
Regarding claim 9, Okita, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Okita, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the centering lugs comprise bottom radii.
Hennenfent is also concerned with work holders and teaches a bottom radius (bottom of slots 102 and 106 are rounded so as to prevent stress concentrations and possible failure of the material at these points, col. 3 lines 44-47 Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a bottom radius like that of Hennenfent to the substrate carrier of Okita in order to prevent stress concentrations and possible failure of the material at these points. With Hennenfent modifying the substrate carrier of Okita, the final claim limitation is met: wherein the centering lugs comprise bottom radii (the bottom radius as described above would be added to the bottom of each of Okita’s centering lugs).
Regarding claim 16, Okita, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 9 as described above. Okita, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the radius of the bottom radii is larger than 0.5 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that the radius being larger than 0.5 mm would result in a difference in function of the Okita device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the substrate carrier of Okita would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended given the claimed radius being larger than 0.5 mm. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, and therefore applicant has assigned no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Okita to include a radius being larger than 0.5 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOHN M LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/J.M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights