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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the clear structure of the centering lugs, the circumferential supporting surface, and recess as described in the specification (Specifically Fig. 2’s orientation is unclear, a marked section should be made on Fig 1 to show this orientation and its specific structure. Further, it is unclear where exactly 23 is calling out in the Fig. 2 and 21 doesn’t appear to be connected to any edge at all. Lastly, 21a is a dotted line implying it is not visible in this orientation and yet the supporting surface would seem that it should be visible). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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 the limitation "the opening edge" in line 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, in that the “opening edge” has not been previously recited. For purposes of this Office action and in the interest of compact prosecution, “the opening edge” will be treated under its broadest reasonable interpretation.
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 1-2 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 [0090], details of the embodiment used in this rejection are shown in Figs 24a-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 [0155] Fig 24c) and a circumferential supporting edge (defined as front end surface 74c [0094] Fig 24b) forming a circumferential or substantially circumferential supporting surface for a substrate (defined as upper surface 74a [0155]-[0156] Fig 24c), wherein each opening further comprises several centering lugs (defined as protruding sections 76A to 76C (equivalents of 21) [0155]-[0156] Fig 24c), each of which forming a bevel or curved surface extending from the opening edge defined by the inner wall of the opening and a top surface of the supporting plate to the supporting surface (opening edge defined as the edge where 15b and 15d meet and as shown in Fig 24c the centering lugs 76A-76C form a bevel or curved surface extending from the opening edge to the supporting surface 74a). Okita fails to teach wherein the substantially circumferential supporting surface comprises a recess in the region of each centering lug.
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 general region of each centering lug, in order to reduce conductive heat from the carrier to the substrate, as taught by Ngo.
PNG
media_image1.png
297
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
299
616
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
419
663
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig 1A of 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 24b 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. 24c, 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. 24c 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 24b 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.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okita, as modified above, further in view of Schober et al (US PGPUB no. 20190080945, hereinafter “Schober”).
Regarding claim 8, Okita, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Okita, as modified, does not explicitly disclose in the region of the supporting surface, the centering lug comprises a vertical section.
Schober is also concerned with substrate carriers and teaches in the region of the supporting surface, the centering lug comprises a vertical section (centering lug is defined as longitudinal protrusion 67 [0190] which comprises of a vertical section shown in annotated Fig 7 below (examiner notes that vertical section here is interpreted as a section containing geometry that extends in a vertical direction)). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the vertical end wall of Schober to the substrate carrier of Okita in order to provide an additional abutting surface to further hinder the substrate from being moved.
PNG
media_image5.png
457
480
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 Schober 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
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.
/JOHN MICHAEL LARSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723