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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-12 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 05/16/2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
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) 1-6 & 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication Number 2006/0222478 A1 to Wakabayashi in view of US Patent Number 5,496,389 to Wilcox.
A) As per Claim 1, Wakabayashi teaches a substrate processing apparatus (Wakabayashi: Figures 2-3) comprising:
an equipment front end module (EFEM) comprising a housing (Wakabayashi: Figures 2-3, Item 6) bounded by a front wall, a back wall, first and second side walls between the front wall and the back wall, a top wall, and a bottom wall;
a load port (Wakabayashi: Figure 3, port between Items 3 & 6) connected to the front wall and configured to receive a front opening unified pod (FOUP);
a load lock chamber (Wakabayashi: Figure 3, Item 4y) connected to the back wall and configured to load or unload a substrate;
a front-end robot (Wakabayashi: Figure 3, item 5) disposed in the housing and configured to transfer the substrate between the FOUP and the load lock chamber;
a fan filter unit (FFU) (Wakabayashi: Figure 2, Item 7) connected to the top wall and configured to provide filtered air to the housing.
Wakabayashi does not teach an air intake port provided above the FFU, the air intake port comprising an air inlet for introducing air, and
an air outlet for providing the air to the FFU, wherein the size of the air inlet is larger than that of the air outlet.
However, Wilcox teaches an air intake port (Wilcox: Figure 8) provided above the FFU, the air intake port comprising an air inlet (Wilcox: Figure 8 rectangular opening above Item 70) for introducing air, and
an air outlet (Wilcox: Figure 8, Item 67) for providing the air to the FFU, wherein the size of the air inlet is larger than that of the air outlet.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Wakabayashi by adding an intake port, as taught by Wilcox, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wakabayashi with these aforementioned teachings of Wilcox with the motivation of prefiltering the airflow to the FFU so that the environment is further cleaned.
B) As per Claim 2, Wakabayashi in view of Wilcox teaches all the limitations except explicitly that the surface area of the air inlet is between 0.24 m2 and 0.56m2.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the surface area of the air inlet is between 0.24 m2 and 0.56m2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (an air inlet area), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that inlet air area is a result effective variable because the larger the area the more airflow but the larger the filter to cover the area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the surface area of the air inlet is between 0.24 m2 and 0.56m2, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
C) As per Claim 3, Wakabayashi in view of Wilcox teaches all the limitations except explicitly that the surface area of the air outlet is between 0.1 m2 and 0.32 m2.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the surface area of the air outlet is between 0.1 m2 and 0.32 m2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the outlet being smaller than the inlet), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the outlet area is a result effective variable because the smaller the more direct to the fan but the more turbulence introduced. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the surface area of the air outlet is between 0.1 m2 and 0.32 m2, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
D) As per Claim 4, Wakabayashi in view of Wilcox teaches that a fin disposed in the air intake port (Wilcox: Figure 8, Item 71).
E) As per Claim 5, Wakabayashi in view of Wilcox teaches a top portion including the air inlet for introducing the air and a bottom portion including the air outlet for providing the air to the FFU (Wilcox: Figure 8).
F) As per Claim 6, Wakabayashi in view of Wilcox teaches that the top portion has a rectangular cuboid shape (Wilcox: best shown in Figure 6).
G) As per Claim 10, Wakabayashi in view of Wilcox teaches an electric box disposed along the air intake port (Wilcox: Figure 7, Item 64).
H) As per Claim 11, Wakabayashi in view of Wilcox teaches that the electric box is disposed along the bottom portion (Wilcox: Figure 7, Item 64).
I) As per Claim 12, Wakabayashi in view of Wilcox teaches a reaction chamber (Wakabayashi: Figure 3, Item 4x) for processing the substrate; and
a substrate handling chamber (Wakabayashi: Figure 3, Item 4n) attached to the reaction chamber, the substrate handling chamber being attached to the load lock chamber.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is (571)272-8511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights