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 .
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.
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:
Placement device; a first housing device; a second housing device; surface treatment device; a conveyance device; or an exhaust device in claims 1 and 3-13;
Frame member in claim 1;
Valve member in claim 12;
Piping member in claim 12; and
Shielding member in claim 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. Specifically, the:
Placement device; a first housing device; a second housing device; surface treatment device; a conveyance device; or exhaust device in claims 1 or 3-13 is interpreted for examination as being a placement part; a first housing part; a second housing part; surface treatment part; a conveyance part; or exhaust part as defined in the specification and the originally filed claims.
Frame member in claim 2 is interpreted as being a rigid body as defined in paragraph 0106 and seen in Figure 9;
Valve member in claim 12 is interpreted as being a valve as defined in paragraph 0046 and seen in Figures 14-15;
Piping member in claim 12 is interpreted as being a pipe as seen in Figures 14-15; and
Shielding member in claim 13 is interpreted as being a shutter 32 as defined in paragraph 0054-0055 and seen in Figure 2.
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.
Claim limitation “device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The newly amended claims have added the limitation “device” in place of part in the claims. The term “device” in terms of the former parts is not found in the specification. It is not clear if the term device is referring to the parts or if it is referring to more structure not used to describe the parts. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujinaga et al, 2017/0204510 A1.
Fujinaga et al teaches:
Regarding claim 1, a surface treatment apparatus 10 comprising: a placement device (part) 14 on which a workpiece 15 is placed; a first housing device (part) 35 that houses the workpiece placed on the placement device (part); a second housing device (part) 36, 37, 50, 70, 90 that houses the workpiece placed on the placement device (part) and includes a surface treatment device (part) performing at least one type of surface treatment; and a conveyance device (part) 24 that conveys the workpiece placed on the placement device (part) in a longitudinal direction of the first housing device (part) and the second housing device (part), wherein the surface treatment apparatus performs surface treatment on the workpiece in a state where the second housing device (part) 36, 37, 50, 70, 90 is in a state where the first housing device (part) 35 and at least one second housing device (part) 36, 37, 50, 70, 90 are plurally coupled by a frame member (frame of gate valves 41-48 being a rigid body (the frame member of the gate valve must be a rigid body so it can support the gate and resist pressure differentials between the housings), the frame member including an outer frame (outer circumference of gate valve) abutting on an outer edge (outer circumference) of the first housing device or the second housing device in a conveyance direction of the conveyance device (part).
Regarding claim 3, the lengths of the first housing device (part) and the second housing device (part) in the conveyance direction of the conveyance device (part) have multiple sizes (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, the first housing device (part) and the second housing device (part) each have two types of lengths in the conveyance direction of the conveyance device (part), one of the lengths being half of the other length (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the surface treatment device (part) 53, 72, 92 includes a sputtering device 53, 72, 92 the sputtering device 53, 72, 92 performing sputtering on the workpiece.
Regarding claim 6, when the different second housing device (part)s 36, 37, 50, 70, 90, are coupled, same or different types of surface treatment device (part)s are installed in each of the second housing device (part)s 36, 37, 50, 70, 90. (Figure 1)
Regarding claim 7, the second housing device (part)s 36, 37, 50, 70, 90, are coupled in such a manner that directions of respective surface treatment device (part)s 53, 72, 92 included in the second housing device (part)s are equal to each other.
Regarding claim 9, the first housing device (part) 35 is a load lock chamber (Paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 10, the conveyance device (part) 24 changes a conveyance range of the workpiece in accordance with a coupling state between the first housing device (part) and the second housing device (part). (Figure 1)
Regarding claim 11, each of the first housing device (part) 35 and the second housing device (part) 36, 37, 50, 70, 90 includes an exhaust device (part) (vent, not illustrated) that adjusts a pressure of an inside of the first housing device (part) and the second housing device (part) and discharges gas filling the inside of the first housing device (part) and the second housing device (part). (Paragraph 0049)
Regarding claim 12, the exhaust device (part) (vent) inherently includes: at least one pump device that sucks gas inside the first housing device (part) or the second housing device (part); a valve member (gate valves 42-47) that opens and closes an opening provided in the first housing device (part) 35 or the second housing device (part) 36, 37, 50, 70, 90 ; and a piping member that connects the pump device and the opening.
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.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujinaga et al, 2017/0204510 A1.
Fujinaga et al was discussed above.
Fujinaga et al differs from the present invention in that Fujinaga et al does not teach the second housing device (part)s are coupled in such a manner that directions of respective surface treatment device (part)s included in the second housing device (part)s are reversed.
It was held that the rearrangement of device (part)s is obvious (see In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to rearrange the respective surface treatment device (part)s so that they are arranged such that the directions of respective surface treatment device (part)s included in the second housing device (part)s are reversed.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujinaga et al, 2017/0204510 A1, in view of Ackley, US 4,534,314.
Fujinaga et al was discussed above.
Fujinaga et al differs from the present invention in that Fujinaga et al does not: specifically teach that the exhaust device (part) includes: at least one pump device that sucks gas inside the first housing device (part) or the second housing device (part); a valve member that opens and closes an opening provided in the first housing device (part) or the second housing device (part); and a piping member that connects the pump device and the opening; or teach a shielding member that, when one of the surface treatment device (part)s performs surface treatment on the workpiece, shields a surface treatment device (part) that is different from the one of the surface treatment device (part)s and is set in a same second housing device (part).
Ackley teaches a surface treatment apparatus that includes exhaust device (part) includes: at least one pump device (roughing pump) that sucks gas inside the first housing device (part) or the second housing device (part); a valve member 140 that opens and closes an opening provided in the first housing device (part) or the second housing device (part); and a piping member 168, 172 that connects the pump device (roughing pump) and the opening 140 (Figures 8 or 9); or a shielding member (shutter) 102 that, when one of the surface treatment device (part)s performs surface treatment on the workpiece, shields a surface treatment device (part) that is different from the one of the surface treatment device (part)s and is set in a same second housing device (part) (Figure 7, column 9 lines 55-56).
The motivation for adding: the valve and pipe of Ackley to the exhaust device (part) of Fujinaga et al is to provide the required structure to control the pressure as required by Fujinaga et al but not shown, taught by Ackley, and well known in the art; and the shielding member (shutter) of Ackley to the apparatus of Fujinaga et al is to enable the coating material to be blocked during rotation (movement) of the carrier plate assembly and when a wafer is not present at the coating stations (surface treatment device (part)s) taught by Ackley (column 9 lines 55-56) and well known in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to add the valve and pipe of Ackley to the exhaust device (part) of Fujinaga et al as required by Fujinaga et al but not shown, taught by Ackley, and well known in the art; and to add the shutter (shield) of Ackley to the apparatus of Fujinaga et al as taught by Ackley and well known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that gate valves of Fujinaga et al do not specifically teach a rigid frame body, the Examiner agrees. However, as seen in Figures 1 and 5 Fujinaga et al clearly teaches the gate valves 42-47 coupled between the first housing device (part) 35 and the at least one second housing devices 36, 37, 50, 70, 90 and that the gate valves abut the outer edge of the first housing device (part) and a second housing device (part) 36 or the second housing device (part) 36, 37, 50, 70, 90, to a second housing (part) 37, 50, 70, 90. Each gate valve inherently includes a rigid frame member that forms the hole in the gate valve and also supports gate of the gate valve. As noted above, the frame member must be rigid to support the gate and prevent the difference in pressure from deforming the gate valve. Thus, Fujinaga et al teaches the claimed elements of the invention and the claims are properly rejected under 102.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art teaches the technological background of the invention. The cited art contains patents that could be used to reject the claims under 35 USC § 102 or 103. These rejections have not been made because they do not provide any additional or different teachings, and if they were applied, would have resulted in an undue multiplication of references. (See MPEP 707.07(g))
The following references could be used to reject the claims under 102 or 103: US 20180066353 A1; US 20170204510 A1; US 9121099 B2; US 20150240346 A1; US 20120295028 A1; US 20110132755 A1; or JP 4681640 B2; US 4851095 A.
The following references teach the use of a shield or shutter: US 4500407 A.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Jeffrie R Lund whose telephone number is (571)272-1437. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm (Monday-Friday).
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at (571) 272-1435. 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.
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
