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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 07 April 2026 is acknowledged.
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 limitations are:
i. Claim 1, “substrate supply unit”, which has been interpreted as first and second load lock chambers, or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 19). This limitation is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in claims 7-8 and 16 in view of the recited structure.
ii. Claims 1, 7, 9 and 11-12, “substrate loading unit”, which has been interpreted as a transfer substrate and a jig, or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (claim 2). This limitation is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in claims 2-5 in view of the recited structure.
iii. Claim 1, “substrate processing unit”, which has been interpreted as a vacuum chamber, or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 90). This limitation is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in claims 9-11 in view of the recited structure.
iv. Claim 1, “substrate discharge unit”, which has been interpreted as a vacuum chamber, or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 123).
v. Claims 1, 8, 11 and 13, “heat treatment module”, which has been interpreted as a Peltier device, or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 72). This limitation is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in claim 6 in view of the recited structure.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Additional limitations not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) may be listed here for clarity of the claim interpretation. Such claim limitations are:
vi. Claims 1, 7, 9 and 12, “graphene transfer unit”, which has not been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in view of the recited carrier substrate.
vii. Claims 8, 11 and 13, “first power supply unit”, “second power supply unit” and “third power supply unit”, which have not been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in view of the structural modifier “power supply”, which is understood in the related art as a structural device which supplies electrical power.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Further Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 5, a jig and a transfer substrate implicitly each have a respective upper surface. Accordingly, “the upper surface of the jig” and “the upper surface of the transfer substrate” are considered to have implicit antecedent basis even though these terms are not previously recited.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, a transfer chamber implicitly has an upper part. Accordingly, “the upper part of the first transfer chamber” and “the upper part of the second transfer chamber” are considered to have implicit antecedent basis even though these terms are not previously recited.
Regarding claim 14, a roller implicitly has an outer surface. Accordingly, “the outer surface” is considered to have implicit antecedent basis even though this term is not previously recited.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 10-14 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 5, as noted above “the upper surface of the jig” and “the upper surface of the transfer substrate” are considered to have implicit antecedent basis. However, since this is the first time these terms are introduced, the examiner suggests --an [[the]] upper surface of the jig-- and --an [[the]] upper surface of the transfer substrate-- to improve the claim readability.
Regarding claim 10, as noted above, “the upper part of the first transfer chamber” is considered to have implicit antecedent basis. However, since this is the first time this term is introduced, to improve claim readability and to correct the grammar of “placed on”, the examiner suggests --is located at an upper part of the first transfer chamber,--.
Regarding claim 12, as noted above, “the upper part of the second transfer chamber” is considered to have implicit antecedent basis. However, since this is the first time this term is introduced, to improve claim readability and to correct the grammar of “placed on”, the examiner suggests --is located at an upper part of the second transfer chamber--.
Regarding claim 14, as noted above, “the outer surface” is considered to have implicit antecedent basis. However, since this is the first time this term is introduced, the examiner suggests --an [[the]] outer surface-- to improve claim readability.
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 5 and 10-14 are 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.
Regarding claim 5, there is no prior indication that the upper surfaces of the jig and transfer substrate are planar. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the same plane”. The examiner suggests --a [[the]] same plane--.
Regarding claim 10, the word “under” is confusing. As seen in Applicant’s Figure 4, the first support base 211 is positioned at a bottom of the first transfer chamber 210, and is not positioned under the first transfer chamber. For the purpose of examination, it is reasonably clear Applicant intended to indicate an arrangement as generally shown in Figure 4.
Regarding claim 11, a “second power supply unit” is recited. However, there is no first power supply unit in parent claim 1 or intervening claims 9, 10 and 11. This makes it unclear if a first power supply unit is implied by the language “second power supply unit”.
Regarding claim 12, as in claim 10 above, the word “under” is confusing. See Applicant’s Figure 4. the second support base 221 is positioned at a bottom of the second transfer chamber 220, and is not positioned under the second transfer chamber. For the purpose of examination, it is reasonably clear Applicant intended to indicate an arrangement as generally shown in Figure 4.
Regarding claim 12, a “second support base” and a “second roller” are recited. However there is no first support base or first roller in parent claim 1 or intervening claim 9. This makes it unclear if a first support base and a first roller are implied by the language “second support base” and “second roller”, respectively.
Regarding claim 13, a “third power supply unit” is recited. However, there is no first or second power supply unit in parent claim 1 or intervening claims 9 and 12. This makes it unclear if first and second power supply units are implied by the language “third power supply unit”.
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 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishide (US 2016/0042958 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nishide teaches a system considered capable of graphene transfer using a heat treatment module (Figures 1-3), comprising: a substrate supply unit having first and second load lock chambers 17 (Figure 1; paragraph 28), considered capable of supplying a substrate loading unit and a graphene transfer unit in a vacuum condition and performing a first heat treatment process; a substrate processing unit 14 or 15 capable of receiving the graphene transfer unit and the substrate loading unit and performing a graphene transfer process through a second heat treatment process; and a substrate discharge unit 11 or 16 for discharging the substrate loading unit, after completion of the graphene transfer process in the substrate processing unit (Figure 1; paragraphs 25-26), wherein the system is considered capable of being used with the graphene transfer unit including a carrier substrate to which graphene is adhered, and a substrate loading unit including a heat treatment module for performing the first heat treatment process and the second heat treatment process because the system of Nishide has space in the respective chambers to accommodate such materials. It is noted that several limitations invoke interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) as detailed in the claim interpretation section above. It is further noted that the substrate loading unit and graphene transfer unit are not part of the claimed apparatus in claim 1, but rather are materials worked upon by the apparatus. Accordingly, these limitations are interpreted as to the apparatus structure which is implied by such material worked upon. See MPEP 2115. Similarly, the functional limitations of first and second heat treatment processes do not positively limit the claimed apparatus, but rather are interpreted as to the apparatus structure which is implied by such functional limitations. See MPEP 2114. Nishide clearly illustrates first and second load lock chambers and additional vacuum chambers which satisfy the claimed substrate supply unit, substate processing unit and substrate discharge unit, as detailed above. The additional material worked upon and functional limitations do not imply any structure which distinguishes over Nishide since the chambers illustrated by Nishide can clearly contain such materials and accommodate such functions.
Claims 2-6 are satisfied for the reasons provided above. These claims only further limit the material worked upon, and do not imply any structure beyond that of Nishide detailed above.
Claim 7 is satisfied for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 9, the first and second chambers are satisfied by vacuum chambers 14 and 15 of Nishide. Such chambers are considered capable of accommodating a roller such that a respective roll-to-plate process can be performed and the second chamber 15 of Nishide is clearly capable of accommodating a heat treatment process within the chamber. As noted above, the claimed apparatus is not positively limited to recited functional process limitations, but rather is only limited to the structure implied thereby.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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. Claims 10-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8, in combination with the claimed limitations, no teaching or suggestion was found in the prior art of record to provide this additional limitation. Nishide does not provide the claimed first power supply unit as part of the first load lock chamber for supplying power to the heat treatment module as interpreted above in the Claim Interpretation section.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, in combination with the claimed limitations, no teaching or suggestion was found in the prior art of record to provide these additional limitations. In particular, while Lee (WO 2015/102459 A1, referencing attached machine translation) provides a roller in a vacuum chamber for graphene transfer (Figure 3; page 9, line 13-15 and 27-40), there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art of record to provide this limitation in combination with the combined limitations of parent claim 1 and intervening claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zaretski (US 2015/0371848 A1) is cited for teaching roller transfer of graphene (Figure 1; paragraphs 38-39).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A TOLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8633. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6 pm.
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, Phillip C. Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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 A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights