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.
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 generic placeholders – “unit,” “mechanism,” “device,” and “layer,” 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 “buffer units” of claim 1;
The “indexer mechanism” of claim 1;
The “interface layer” of claim 1;
The “first treatment layer” of claim 1;
The “second treatment layer” of claim 1;
The “developing treatment layer” of claim 1;
The “coating treatment layer” of claim 1;
The “exposure-related treating unit” of claim 1;
The treating area “transport mechanism” of claim 1;
The interface area “transport mechanism” of claim 1;
The “carrier transport mechanism” of claim 8.
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.
Each buffer unit (BU) will be interpreted as a plurality of vertical platforms in accordance with paragraph [0062] of the specification.
The indexer mechanism (MHU1/MHU2) will be interpreted as a transfer robot in accordance with paragraph [0047].
The interface layer (3A) will be interpreted as a level of the first treating block (3) comprising a transfer robot (MHU3) in accordance with Figure 1 and paragraph [0063].
The first treatment layer (3B/3C) will be interpreted as a level of the first treating block (3) comprising a transfer robot (MHU3) in accordance with paragraph [0063].
The second treatment layer (5A/5B) will be interpreted as a level of the second treating block (5) comprising a transfer robot (MHU4) [0066].
The developing treatment layer will be interpreted as a level of the first treating block (3) comprising developing units (DEV) in accordance with paragraphs [0073-74].
The coating treatment layer will be interpreted as a level of the second treating block (5) comprising coating units (BARC/PR) in accordance with paragraph [0073].
The exposure-related treating unit (36, 37) will be interpreted as a liquid treatment unit (36) and a heat treating unit (37) formed within the interface layer (3A) in accordance with paragraphs [0080-81].
The treating area transport mechanism (MHU3) will be interpreted as transfer robot (MHU3) in accordance with paragraph [0063].
The interface area transport mechanism (MHU5) will be interpreted as a transfer robot comprising hands (21) in accordance with paragraph [0085].
The carrier transport mechanism (61) will be interpreted as a robot comprising two articulated arms (65, 66) in accordance with paragraph [0095].
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).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,339,011. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the content claimed by ‘011 is commensurate in scope with the features enumerated by claims 1-4 and 8 of the instant application.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,348,812. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the content claimed by ‘812 is commensurate in scope with the features enumerated by claims 1-4 and 8 of the instant application.
Claims 1 and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,014,940. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the content claimed by ‘940 is commensurate in scope with the features enumerated by claims 1 and 8 of the instant application.
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 dependent 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. Claim 1 specifies that the “first treatment layer is a developing-treatment layer” and that the “second treatment layers are each a coating-treatment layer.” As noted in the analysis above, both “first treatment layer” and “development-treatment layer” are nonce terms being treated under 112(f). Similarly, both “second treatments layers” and “coating treatment layer” are nonce terms being treated under 112(f). It is improper, though, to define one generic placeholder by reference to another generic placeholder because these terms lack content, by definition, and cannot be relied upon to establish a structural description for another term. Further, the formal definition of every term treated under 112(f) is “and equivalents thereof.” Nesting one nonce term within another necessarily yields the indefinite suffix of an equivalent of an equivalent thereof. For these reasons, the aforesaid limitations are indefinite. To promote compact prosecution, the examiner will accept the prior art disclosure of the features corresponding to “developing-treatment layer” as satisfying the recitation of “first treatment layer,” and will accept the prior art disclosure of the features corresponding to “coating treatment layer” as satisfying the recitation of “second treatment layer.”
Relatedly, the definition of “treating area” relies upon nonce terms such as “transport mechanism” and “exposure-related treating unit,” but “treating area” itself is a subcomponent of the nonce term “interface layer.” Thus, the generic placeholders of “transport mechanism” and “exposure-related treating unit” are, ultimately, relied upon to the define the nonce term “interface layer.” For the reasons elaborated directly above, it is improper to define a generic placeholder by reference to another generic placeholder, as this operation cannot effectively establish the metes of the initial generic placeholder. To advance prosecution, the examiner will accept the prior art disclosure of those features corresponding to “transport mechanism” and “exposure-related treating unit” as satisfying the claim limitation of “interface layer.”
Relatedly, the definition of “interface area” relies upon the nonce term “transport mechanism,” but “interface area” itself is a subcomponent of the nonce term “interface layer.” Thus, the generic placeholder of “transport mechanism” is, ultimately, relied upon to the define the nonce term “interface layer.” For the reasons elaborated above, it is improper to define a generic placeholder by reference to another generic placeholder, as this operation cannot effectively establish the metes of the initial generic placeholder. To advance prosecution, the examiner will accept the prior art disclosure of the features corresponding to “transport mechanism” as satisfying the claim limitation of “interface layer.”
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akimoto et al., US 2007/0056514.
Akimoto teaches a substrate treating apparatus (Fig. 8), comprising:
An indexer block (U6) provided with:
A carrier platform (TRS6) for placing a substrate carrier;
A substrate buffer with a plurality of buffer units (TRS7, TRS8), i.e., vertical platforms, where substrates are placed [0092];
An indexer mechanism (63), i.e., a transfer robot, configured to transport the substrates;
A first treating block (~A5), including:
An interface layer (B4) configured to load and unload substrates from an external device (S4) [0054, 0081];
A first treatment layer (B5) located above the interface layer (Fig. 9);
A second treating block (~A2), including:
A plurality of second treatment layers (B1-B3) arranged vertically;
Wherein the first treating block (A5), the indexer block (U6), and the second treating block (A2) are sequentially connected in the listed order (Fig. 8);
The indexer mechanism (63) transporting the substrate from one buffer unit at one height to another unit at a different height [0092];
The plurality of second treatment layers receiving and delivering the substrates to and from the buffer units;
The interface layer (B4) receiving the substrate from the buffer unit (TRS6) located at a corresponding height position (Fig. 3);
The first treatment layer (B5) delivering the substrate to the buffer unit (TRS7) located at a corresponding height position;
Wherein the interface layer includes a treating area and an interface area (U7);
Wherein the treating area includes an exposure-related treating unit, i.e., a liquid treatment unit, and a transport mechanism, i.e., a transfer robot (A4) configured to transport the substrate among the buffer, liquid treatment unit, and interface area;
Wherein the interface area includes a transport mechanism, i.e., a transfer robot (TRS9), configured to transport a substrate between the exposure device and treating area.
Although Akimoto does not attest that platform TRS6 bears a “carrier,” as the claim requires, the examiner notes that the platform is structurally capable of doing so. In claims drawn to an apparatus, the prior art must merely demonstrate the structural capacity to reproduce any functional recitations – it has been held that claims directed to an 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)).
Regarding the concluding limitation of claim 1, the boundary of the “first treatment layer” may be construed to enclose the unit stack (U7) comprising the transport mechanism of the interface area.
The 112f interpretation of “buffer unit” requires plural platforms, yet it is unclear if Akimoto provides a second platform in addition to the base platform (TRS). Even so, simply replicating the platform to achieve the predictable result of accommodating additional substrates would have been obvious to the skilled artisan, as it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Lastly, those limitations characterizing a given layer as “developing-treatment” or “coating-treatment” constitute recitations of intended use, as Akimoto’s system is capable of accommodating and supplying either a developing fluid or coating fluid to any of the treatment layers – 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)).
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Hayashida et al., US 2010/0021621. Hayashida discloses a substrate treating apparatus comprising an indexer block (U6), a first treating block (A2) comprising multiple treatment layers including development and coating, and an exposure device (S4) coupled in that order (Fig. 1; [0046]).
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
Prosecution Insights