DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on January 15, 2026. Claim 1 is amended; claims 22 and 23 are new.
The applicant contends that the cited prior art fails to disclose the limitations recited by new claims 22 and 23 (pp. 12-14).
In response, the examiner disagrees. With regard to claim 22, Figure 2A of Boitnott depicts an upper chamber body (105) stacked atop a lower chamber body (88), as well as upper covers (99-102) sealing a corresponding number of top openings. Further, the transfer chamber (86) is located in the lower chamber body (88) and the reaction chambers (111-114) are located in the upper chamber body (105).
With regard to claim 23, this is a matter of intended use, whereby the prior art must merely demonstrate the structural capacity to reproduce any functional recitations in order to satisfy the threshold for rejection – it has been held that a recitation drawn to the intended manner of employing a claimed apparatus does not differentiate said apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)). In this case, the operator can control Boitnott’s carrier mechanism (90) to initially distribute a first batch of wafers to the plurality of bases and then load a second batch of wafers to the carrier mechanism’s finger pieces. The operator can further control the bases to elevate the first batch of wafers into the reaction chamber while the second batch remains in the transfer chamber on the finger pieces of the carrier mechanism. This sequence appears to satisfy the stipulations of claim 23.
Drawings
Replacement drawings were received on January 15, 2026. They are acceptable, and the outstanding drawing objections have been withdrawn.
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.
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 limitations use a generic placeholder – mechanism, in this case – 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:
The “transfer mechanism” of claims 1;
The “carrier mechanism” of claims 1.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The transfer mechanism (22) will be interpreted as a finger member (221) and a plurality of swing rods in accordance with paragraph [0054] of Applicant’s specification.
The carrier mechanism (21) will be interpreted as a plurality of finger pieces (211-214) in accordance with paragraph [0043].
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid 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 them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claim 1 and its dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The fifth paragraph of claim 1, directed to the transfer mechanism, refers to “the carrier mechanism,” but this limitation lacks antecedent basis because the claim does not properly introduce the carrier mechanism until the next paragraph. Correction is required.
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, 6, 10, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boitnott et al., US 5,863,170.
Claim 1: Boitnott discloses a processing chamber (70), comprising:
A transfer chamber (86) (Figs. 2);
A plurality of reaction chambers (91-94) located above the transfer chamber and connected thereto via bottom openings (4, 35-55);
A plurality of bases (106-109) configured to:
Carry wafers (78) (Fig. 2A);
Be in a one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of reaction chambers (Fig. 2B);
Ascend and descend between the reaction chambers and the transfer chamber to seal or open the bottom openings (4, 56-67);
A transfer mechanism (84), including a finger and swing rods, arranged in the transfer chamber and configured to transfer a wafer from outside the processing chamber onto the base, and to transfer the wafer on the base out of the processing chamber (2, 49-61);
A carrier mechanism (90), including a plurality of finger pieces, arranged in the transfer chamber and configured to carry and transfer a plurality of wafers to the plurality of bases (Fig. 2C);
Wherein the plurality of bases is around the carrier mechanism (Fig. 2B);
Wherein the carrier mechanism includes a plurality of wafer carrying positions;
Wherein a number of wafer carrying positions, four, is equivalent to the number of bases, four;
Wherein the carrier mechanism is configured to allow the plurality of wafer carrying positions to transfer the wafers onto the bases (4, 44-55; 5, 8-15).
Claim 6: As shown by Figure 2B, two wafer transfer opening are formed on the left side wall of the transfer chamber, whereby the transfer mechanism (84) is configured to obtain a wafer from outside the processing chamber through the transfer opening, as well as to transfer a wafer out of the processing chamber via the transfer opening.
Claim 10: The entirety of the system shown by Figure 2A may be taken as the “semiconductor processing equipment.”
Claim 22: Figure 2A of Boitnott depicts an upper chamber body (105) stacked atop a lower chamber body (88), as well as upper covers (99-102) sealing a corresponding number of top openings. Further, the transfer chamber (86) is located in the lower chamber body (88) and the reaction chambers (111-114) are located in the upper chamber body (105).
Claim 23: This claim is directed to matters of intended use, whereby the prior art must merely demonstrate the structural capacity to reproduce any functional recitations in order to satisfy the threshold for rejection – it has been held that a recitation drawn to the intended manner of employing a claimed apparatus does not differentiate said apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)). In this case, the operator can control Boitnott’s carrier mechanism (90) to initially distribute a first batch of wafers to the plurality of bases and then load a second batch of wafers to the carrier mechanism’s finger pieces. The operator can further control the bases to elevate the first batch of wafers into the reaction chamber while the second batch remains in the transfer chamber on the finger pieces of the carrier mechanism.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boitnott.
Boitnott’s carrier mechanism (90) includes four extensions to bear wafers, a central hub, and an actuation means. The actuation means may be taken as the claimed “driver,” the central hub may be taken as the “connector,” as the four wafer-bearing extensions may be taken as the “finger pieces.” Further, the wafer carrying positions are formed on the upper surfaces of the finger pieces, which are themselves arranged around the connector (Fig. 2C). The driver drives the finger pieces to rotate around a rotation axis of the connector (4, 21-29).
Lastly, it is unclear if the carrier mechanism “ascends and descends,” but the four bases do elevate vertically, thereby establishing the operation of relative movement between the carrier mechanism and the bases. Given the operation of relative motion, simply inverting the moving component would have been obvious to the skilled artisan, as it would have been obvious to try an identified, predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boitnott in view of Todaka, US 2007/0034479.
Boitnott drives the carrier mechanism so that the finger pieces rotate to a position above the plurality of bases in a one-to-one correspondence, whereby a gap, or “clearance,” forms between the upper surface of the base and a respective finger piece (Fig. 2A). Boitnott, though, is silent regarding the matter of a support column. In supplementation, Todaka describes an analogous processing chamber comprising a plurality of bases (20) along with a carrier mechanism (25) for carrying and transferring wafers to the various bases ([0033]; Fig. 2). In addition, Todaka prescribes a solution for providing clearance between the base’s upper surface and the wafer to permit access by an arm of the carrier mechanism: support columns (44) extend through a corresponding plurality of base holes formed within the base [0035]. As shown by Figures 12-14, the support columns can descend relative to the base and ascend with the base, as well as support and lift a wafer on the base. It would have been obvious to incorporate support columns within the bases of Boitnott to facilitate wafer transfer operations, since using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boitnott in view of Todaka, and in further view of Aichholzer et al., US 2011/0042906.
Todaka’s support column does not appear to have a “position limiting member” to establish a fixed relative position to the base. Aichholzer, however, imagines a modification to the conventional support column (12) which fashions the head as a countersink, thereby establishing a fixed position in relation to the top surface of the base’s carrying surface, as the claim requires ([0038]; Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to design the head of Todaka’s support column in accordance with this archetype to prevent the retraction of the column within the body of the base, since combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Silva et al., US 2010/0012036. Silva depicts a transfer chamber and a plurality of reaction chambers (214) located above the transfer chamber via bottom openings (Fig. 2B). In addition, Silva provides a plurality of vertically movable wafer-carrying bases (326) in one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of reaction chambers [0041]. A carrier mechanism (216) is arranged in the transfer chamber and is configured to carry and transfer a plurality of wafers to the plurality of bases (Fig. 2A).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. 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.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716