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 .
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: processing units in claims 1,3-8 & base unit(s) in claims 4-5.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-2,6-7,9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lill (US 9,818,633) in view of Hofmeister (8,602,706).
Re claims 1,9, Lill teaches a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus 10, comprising: a front end module 100 with a load port 130 to which a conveyance container 135 is connected; and a plurality of processing units 160,190, configured to process a semiconductor substrate, disposed around the front end module in a plan view from a normal direction of the upper surface of the front end module, and each connected to the front end module from at least two directions (figures 2,7,etc.) in the plan view, wherein the semiconductor substrate is conveyed between the conveyance container and the processing units via the front end module.
Lill teaches movable robot 180 that moves between rows of chambers but not each of the plurality of processing units includes at least one conveyance device configured to convey the semiconductor substrate along two rows of chambers within the processing unit. However, Lill in paragraph 33 and elsewhere states that other types of process unit arrangements may be used. Hofmeister (see figures such as 7,2-6,etc.) teaches a similar semiconductor manufacturing apparatus with a plurality of processing units 18A,18B, etc. including at least one conveyance device 22,122,406 configured to convey the semiconductor substrate along two rows of chambers 20,301,302 within the processing unit. It would have been obvious to have modified Lill in view of Hofmeister as claimed in order to allow greater variation in process chamber numbers, types and layouts of processing units to meet the needs of varied given situations, available space and other given requirements.
Re claim 2, Lill & Lill as already modified teaches the processing units include a plurality of processing chambers (200,205; 20,301,302) each configured to process semiconductor substrate.
Re claim 6, Lill teaches the conveyance container includes a front opening unified pod 135.
Re claim 7, Lill teaches the conveyance container is configured to transfer the substrate.
Claims 3,8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lill (US 9,818,633) in view of Hofmeister (8,602,706) & Jeong (KR10-2018-0045316).
Re claims 3,8, Lill teaches (see claim 1 rejection above & included herein this claim rejection) the processing units are connected to the front end module from two (front / back) rather than four directions orthogonal to each other in the plan view. Jeong teaches a similar semiconductor manufacturing apparatus with a top loading (figure 2, FOUPs10 enter/exit via 143) front end module 100 with processing units 230 on left / right sides as well as front (back) sides. Also duplication and rearrangement of parts is an obvious modification (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Lill in view of Jeong as claimed in order to have the processing units connected to the front end module from four directions orthogonal to each other in the plan view as claimed in order to allow greater processing, layout and handling capabilities to fit the needs of a varied space limitations and processing needs.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lill (US 9,818,633) in view of Hofmeister (8,602,706) & Chen (US 8,944,739).
Re claim 4, Lill does not teach a plurality of base units connected to each other while sharing one of the processing units, wherein the plurality of processing units are connected to the front end module as a base unit. Chen teaches multiple base unit front end modules (EFEMs) (see figures, not numbered) connected & sharing processing units (see figures) with FOUPs 50 transferring overhead. Also duplication and rearrangement of parts is an obvious modification (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Lill in view of Chen as claimed in order to allow greater processing, layout and handling capabilities to fit the needs of a varied space limitations and processing needs.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lill (US 9,818,633) in view of Hofmeister (8,602,706), Chen (US 8,944,739) and Bachrach (US 6,698,991).
Re claim 5, Lill teaches a controller 156 with a method for monitoring & designating paths for the wafers to be moved through the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus & communicating with other EFEMs, load ports, etc. (columns 9-12). Bachrach teaches a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus with multiple base unit front end modules & load ports LP with a method of monitoring operation that can detect abnormalities (need for repair, maintenance, etc.) and reroute to non-abnormal units with shared connections (figures 1-5, column 3 lines 23-32, column 4 lines 38-colunm 5 line 15) to give a fault tolerant system and backup ability to allow continuous production. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Lill as claimed in order to have a fault tolerant system and backup ability to allow continuous production.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hofmeister (US 7,959,395) teaches (abstract, cover) a similar semiconductor apparatus with conveyances devices.
Bonora (US 8,851,817) teaches (abstract, cover) a similar semiconductor apparatus with conveyances devices.
Janakiraman (US 10,056,279) teaches (abstract, cover, figures 3C,5A) a similar semiconductor apparatus with conveyances devices.
Shindo (US 11,961,758) teaches (abstract, cover, figures 1,8) a similar semiconductor apparatus with conveyances devices.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued against 112F claim interpretation of processing units in claim 1,3-8 and base unit(s) in claims 4-5. However, there are nonce terms unit(s) with functional language (unit for processing, unit for base(ing)) without sufficient modifying structure, etc. for performing the claimed function. One of ordinary skill would not have understood the terms to have sufficient definite meaning / structure.
Applicant argued that the claims as amended did not have the conveying device as claimed. As shown above Hofmeister has been added and Lill as modified teaches the claimed limitations.
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 MICHAEL S LOWE whose telephone number is (571)272-6929. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling M,Th,F & alternating W 6:30am-6:30pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 5712727097. 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.
MICHAEL S. LOWE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/MICHAEL S LOWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights