DETAILED ACTION
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) 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 limitations are: conveying apparatus in claim 1, lifting mechanism in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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, 2, 7-9, 12, 14, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Moriaski (2010/0047448).
Moriaski teaches a device for processing a wafer, comprising:
- a conveying apparatus and at least one reaction apparatus, see Fig. 8 with conveying apparatus 201 connected to a reaction apparatus 100, the conveying apparatus is interpreted under 112(f) as including a robot with at least an arm as depicted in Figs. 1 and 4 and per [0075], and equivalents thereof, 201 of Moriaski has the same parts,
- wherein the reaction apparatus comprises a reaction chamber, a gas supply module and a gas extraction module, see Figs. 3, 4 and 7, particularly also per [0110-114] wherein gas supply and extraction (exhaust/pump) is described, and are positioned on opposite sides of the chamber (see also inlet 130/
- as per Fig. 7 and the noted text, the conveying apparatus (entering chamber through 101B) is on the same side as the gas supply module, nozzle (101C) [0112], and, as per the citation, the conveying apparatus loads/unloads the substrates.
‘High temperature’ and ‘processing of an epitaxial layer’ are intended use of the apparatus. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). The prior art apparatus is useable for a “high-temperature” process and an epitaxial process is a selection of process, not system.
Regarding claim 2, the system further includes a:
- reaction chamber body, see 101 per the noted figures wherein it is connected to the gas supply, extraction and conveying apparatus as noted above,
- a lifting mechanism, the lifting mechanism is interpreted under 112(f) as per above and includes at least a drive component and an execution component as described and depicted and the equivalents; Moriaski teaches a drive part (movable unit 109) and shaft (execution component) that effect up/down movement [0083];
- and a tray – see transfer plate 110 [0083] that is understood to be detachably provided as it is transferable and used for loading the wafers (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 7-9, there is a transfer channel, see 101B [0112], Fig. 7 and a gas supply tube is provided in the reaction chamber, see Fig. 4 at least 101a and/or 101C, but also per 101C wherein the gas tube and transfer channel are vertically arranged and per claim 9 there is at least one channel in the gas tube (as would be necessary to convey a gas).
Regarding claim 12, while it is not clear what the gas is “separately adjusted” relative to, the use of the apparatus is intended use in any case. The gas flow of the prior art is understood to have a flow rate of some value. There are no limitations on structure as to how to adjust it.
Regarding claim 14, the conveying apparatus includes a chamber and mechanical arm (see robot arm) as described above and per Fig. 7 as noted.
Regarding claim 15, there are chambers 202 connected to the conveying chamber and, even though the use is intended use and not limited, is used for storing/transferring wafers [0116-18].
Regarding claim 17, the mechanical arms is held as per Fig. 7, the arm includes:
- a fixed seat in the conveying chamber – taken as the circular portion at the base,
- a mechanical arm module, the movable part that includes the 3 arms,
- a gripper component – see 201A which includes a transfer arm for holding the wafer.
It is understood as depicted and described [0111] that the mechanical arm module drives the gripper which holds the substrate and as depicted moves in and out of the reaction chamber, thereby meeting the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 18, initially it is noted that the arm components aren’t specifically limited by their intended use, however, they are limited by ability to function as claimed. The teachings include the active arm component, which is the component originating from the described fixed seat (furthest from the reaction chamber), and rotates on the fixed seat as depicted/described, a passive arm component that is attached to the active arm component as depicted with the cantilever rod component attached to the passive arm with gripper attached (not shown but described/understood as in the process chamber) – all as per below in the annotated version of Fig. 7.
PNG
media_image1.png
406
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, the teachings do not specify a motor, however, as per MPEP 2144.01, it is proper to take into account both explicit and implicit teachings of a reference. In the art, it would be well understood that there is some type of a motor to drive the robot as taught by Moriaski.
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.
Claims 3-6, 10, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriaski in view of Takahashi (2016/0319424).
Regarding claim 3, Moriaski teaches a lifting component as noted per claim 2 above – in regard to the lifting execution component is provided on a bottom plate and with a sealing fit – the teachings include a bottom plate (see Fig. 4). The penetration through the bottom plate is analogous to the instant figures which depict a similar relationship of the bottom plate with the execution component (i.e. shaft) protruding through, but Moriaski does not specifically teach a “sealing fit”. Takahashi teaches, however, that it is useful to include a bellows around a lifting rod in a system that allows a substate holder to be raised and lowered, see Fig. 1 and particularly [0099-0104]. The bellows (equivalent to the “scalable sealing sleeve” of claim 4) helps to protect the chamber from contamination from the moving parts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to include the bellows of Takahashi in the system of Moriaski as it would allow for an effective manner of sealing the moving parts from the chamber as taught by Takahashi. The combined art further includes a bottom plate of the chamber of Takahashi where the bellows contacts.
In regard to the tray, the tray is depicted as at the lifting execution component upper portion and as above described as detachable. As described here and above per claim 2 and per [0083], the lifting drive component is connected to the execution component as claimed with the tray rising and falling as described [0083].
Regarding claim 4, in regard to the parts of the lifting execution component, Moriaski includes at least the lifting rod and some type of lifting seat where the lifts from the drive component (109). The scalable sealing device is the bellows of Takahashi and as understood in the combination, it seals with the bottom plate as per Takahashi. In regard to the specific arrangement, it is generally taught by the combined art in implementing the bellows contacting the bottom plate of Takahashi in the apparatus of Moriaski, however, in view of the claimed arrangement, it is generally equivalent but wherein the rod is connected to a bracket, such a modification is a mere rearrangement of parts. Rearrangement of parts is routine, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. and parts like brackets, and inserting various components into adjoining components is generally known and not patentable, brackets and insertion of parts is a mere method of connecting various parts in such systems. The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but rather whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in the light of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). One of ordinary skill can use his or her ordinary skill, creativity, and common sense to make the necessary adjustments and further modifications to result in a properly functioning device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“a court can take into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”).
Regarding claim 5, as depicted, the bellows is a corrugated pipe.
Regarding claim 6, per [0083] and Fig. 4, the lifting mechanism is capable of rotation as well.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Moriaski is silent on a gate valve, but Takahashi teaches such an arrangement is known between a chamber and a transfer chamber [0099]. The further combination of the references would have been obvious for the purpose of sealing off between the transfer and process chamber. In further regard to claim 11, Examiner takes Official Notice that the claimed composition of the gate valve is a known gate valve and not patentable wherein the art teaches a gate valve. The Office further notes the arguments in regard to the combination of parts and obviousness of using ordinary skill for a properly functioning device – it is noted that a gate valve would be generally understood to include a component to drive the valve as well as a plate or means of sealing as well as a channel to open and close the valve in order to function as desired.
Regarding claim 16, as per claim 10 above, Takahashi teaches a gate valve between two chambers. This rejection does not rely on the combination of the references as per claim 3; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the gate valve of Takahashi for the purpose of effectively separating/sealing the chambers.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriaski.
Regarding claim 13, Moriaski does not specifically teach multiple gas channels in the supply tube or the relative size thereof. But such modifications are obvious wherein the purpose of the purpose is to supply gases to the chamber. As per Fig. 3, multiple gases are available and the use of multiple gas channels would have been a routine duplication of parts, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. and modification of size also obvious, see 2144.04 IV. A. Both having multiple channels and the modification of the size is obvious and not shown as critical within the scope of the invention. Such modifications would have been obvious for performing processes with the system for gas control.
Regarding claim 20, the teachings do not include a motor such as a servo or stepper, but Examiner takes Official notice that such motors are well known for controlling robotic movements in a process chamber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights