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 .
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 limitation(s) is/are: “a stage driving mechanism” in claims 1 and 19.
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “airflow generator on the stage” as recited in claims 11 and 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for “a stage in the first process space, the stage configured to support a substrate . . . an airflow generator above the stage,” does not reasonably provide enablement for “a stage in the first process space, the stage configured to support a substrate . . . an airflow generator on the stage.” The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The figures and specification do not appear to depict or discuss the claimed configuration. The level of direction provided is insufficient to teach a person skilled in the art how to provide the airflow generator on the stage without it interfering with the cleaning nozzle arm (5) and cleaning nozzle (51) and/or the wafer (W). The lack of disclosure would result in undue experimentation required for a person skilled in the art to modify the disclosed designs to be as claimed, since it would require a reengineering of large portions of the apparatus. These factors support a conclusion that there the specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
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 18-20 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the rotating air current" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sanada et al. (US 2008/0022928).
Regarding claim 1, Sanada discloses a substrate processing apparatus, comprising: a first process chamber including a first process space (1); a stage in the first process space, the stage being configured to support a substrate (21); a stage driving mechanism configured to drive the stage to rotate about a first axis (22); a cleaning nozzle arm configured to supply a cleaning solution onto the stage (50, 51, 52); a gas supply unit configured to provide an inert gas to the first process space (4; paragraph 108); and an airflow generator between the stage and the gas supply unit, the airflow generator being configured to generate a spiral-shaped rotating air current (FFU, and 1a; paragraph 63).
Note that performing cleaning and supplying a cleaning solution is intended use of the claimed apparatus and capable of being met by the apparatus of Sanada. The claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Regarding claims 3, 5, and 6, Sanada discloses wherein the airflow generator includes a showerhead configured to provide a gas hole through which the inert gas passes (upper portion of 1 and 1a); wherein the gas supply unit is configured to supply one of nitrogen (N2), argon (Ar), and helium (He) on the airflow generator (paragraph 63); wherein the gas hole extends obliquely, and the first axis and a second axis intersect each other, the second axis being parallel to an extending direction of the gas hole (see rotation axis of 21, and note that the holes 1a extend in three dimensions and can have any arbitrary second axis).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae et al. (KR 2023-0126938), in view of Sanada et al. (US 2008/0022928), and further in view of KR 100497201 (hereafter, “KR ‘201”).
Regarding claim 1, Chae discloses a substrate processing apparatus, comprising: a first process chamber including a first process space (100); a stage in the first process space, the stage being configured to support a substrate (410); a stage driving mechanism configured to drive the stage to rotate about a first axis (450); a cleaning nozzle arm configured to supply a cleaning solution onto the stage (500); a gas supply unit configured to provide a gas to the first process space (200); and an airflow generator between the stage and the gas supply unit (300).
Chae does not expressly disclose the gas supply unit is configured to provide an inert gas.
Sanada discloses a substrate processing apparatus having a fan filter unit (FFU) to generate an air current, and may use an inert gas such as nitrogen gas (paragraphs 52, 53, 108).
Because it is known in the art to provide an inert gas such as nitrogen, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing a nonreactive gas, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the gas supply unit is configured to provide an inert gas.
Chae does not expressly disclose the airflow generator being configured to generate a spiral-shaped rotating air current.
Sanada discloses a substrate processing apparatus wherein a spiral/twister shaped air current is generated to remove the turbulent flow generated by friction between an atmosphere and a rotating substrate, preventing particles from adhering on the substrate (paragraphs 15-17, 74-77). KR ‘201 discloses a gas distributer for processing a semiconductor device with gas having a spiral motion, having a gas distribution plate (44) with gas distribution holes (H’) with inlet ends (H’1) and outlet ends (H’2) displaced to be obliquely arranged and disposed on concentric circles, or with the outlet ends (H’2) located slightly out of the concentric circles (CL; see Figure 4; translation, page 4, paragraph 6 – page 5, paragraph 1).
Because it is known in the art to provide a spiral gas motion, as taught by Sanada, and to generate a spiral gas motion using a distribution plate, as taught by KR ‘201, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing a gas with spiral motion to reduce particle adherence to the substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the airflow generator being configured to generate a spiral-shaped rotating air current.
Claims 2-3 are considered to be met by modified Chae as applied above and which results in: wherein the airflow generator includes a rotatable propeller (320; translation, paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5); wherein the airflow generator includes a showerhead configured to provide a gas hole through which the inert gas passes (Chae: 340, 341; KR ‘201: H’).
Claim(s) 7-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae et al. (KR 2023-0126938), in view of Sanada et al. (US 2008/0022928), in view of KR 100497201 (hereafter, “KR ‘201”), and further in view of Miyagawa et al. (JP 2022-70067).
Regarding claim 7, modified Chae is relied upon as above, and is interpreted as having a second process chamber (Chae: 100), wherein the second process chamber is configured to provide a second process space (Chae: interior of 100), wherein the stage, the cleaning nozzle arm, and the airflow generator are in the second process space (Chae: 410, 520, 300).
Chae does not expressly disclose the second process chamber in the first process chamber.
Miyagawa discloses a substrate processing device, including a processing block (Figures 1-3: 3; note walls of processing block) and processing chambers (61) located inside the processing block.
Because it is known in the art to provide processing chambers inside a processing block, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing a known arrangement of plural processing chambers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second process chamber in the first process chamber.
Chae does not expressly disclose wherein the gas supply unit is on the second process chamber; however, this limitation is considered to be a mere rearrangement of parts. Absent unexpected results or persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the location of the gas supply unit to be on the second process chamber, and the results would be predictable. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) – Rearrangement of Parts.
Claims 8 and 10 are considered to be met by modified Chae as relied upon as above and which results in: wherein the airflow generator includes a showerhead connected to a lateral surface of the second process chamber (Chae: 300, 340, 1000); wherein the showerhead is configured to provide a gas hole having one of arc, helical, and wavy shapes, each of which is configured to allow the inert gas to have spiral-shaped fluidity, the gas supply unit configured to supply the inert gas (KR ‘201: Figure 4, see arc/circle shape distribution holes).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae et al. (KR 2023-0126938), in view of Sanada et al. (US 2008/0022928), in view of KR 100497201 (hereafter, “KR ‘201”), in view of Miyagawa et al. (JP 2022-70067), and further in view of Kisakibaru et al. (US 2019/0206704).
Regarding claim 9, modified Chae is relied upon as above and further discloses wherein the airflow generator includes: a propeller on the showerhead (320, 310/340), but does not expressly disclose a rotary motor configured to rotate the propeller or the showerhead.
Kisakibaru discloses an apparatus for manufacturing semiconductors including a fan and filter unit (20) with a fan (24) rotated by a driving motor (22).
Because it is known in the art to provide a driving motor, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing a known means of driving a fan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a rotary motor configured to rotate the propeller or the showerhead.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose, or render obvious, a substrate processing apparatus as defined by the combination of claims 1, 2, and 4. There is no apparent teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the closest prior art, Chae et al. (KR 2023-0126938), to further include wherein the airflow generator is rotatable, and the airflow generator includes a magnetic levitation motor configured to generate a magnetic force that is configured to cause the propeller to float in the first process space.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G CORMIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571) 272-1414. 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.
DAVID G. CORMIER
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/DAVID G CORMIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711