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 transfer device” in claims 10 and 16;
“a exhaust device” in claims 10 and 16;
“a gas supply device” in claims 10 and 16;
“a control device” in claims 10 and 16;
“a determination part” in claims 10 and 16;
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.
After reviewing the specification, the transfer device is drawn to a robot arm, or known equivalents (per paragraph [0020]), the exhaust device is drawn a TMP, DP, and valves,, or known equivalents (per paragraph [0023]) the gas supply device is drawn to a PCV, or known equivalents (per paragraph [0024]), the gas supply device is drawn to a memory, processor, input/output interface, or known equivalents (per paragraph [0026]) the determination part is not defined.
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 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Claims 11-15 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 10.
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 10-16 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 limitation “a determination part” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the limitation invokes 112f by reciting the functional language of “determination” with the generic placeholder of “part” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what structure is performing the functions of the claim. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claims 11-15 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 10.
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 10-16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,128,550. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Application 18/792,259
US Patent 12,128,550
10. A vacuum transfer device that is arranged between a process chamber and a load lock chamber and transfers a substrate between the process chamber and the load lock chamber, comprising:
a container connected to each of the process chamber and the load lock chamber via a gate valve;
a transfer device provided inside the container and configured to transfer the substrate between the process chamber and the load lock chamber;
an exhaust device configured to exhaust a gas in the container and including a first pump and a second pump;
a dew-point meter configured to measure a dew-point temperature of the gas in the container; a gas supply device configured to supply an inert gas into the container and including a pressure control valve; and
a control device configured to determine whether or not a process is ready to be executed, based on the dew-point temperature measured by the dew-point meter, wherein the control device includes:
a determination part configured to determine whether or not the dew-point temperature is equal to or lower than a predetermined first temperature after an interior of the container is opened to atmosphere and sealed again; and a controller configured to determine that the process is ready to be executed, when a plurality of predetermined conditions are satisfied, including one condition that the dew-point temperature is determined to be equal to or lower than the predetermined first temperature by the determination part, and wherein the controller operates the first pump and the second pump to exhaust the gas in the container, stops the operation of the first pump when an internal pressure of the container is equal to or lower than a predetermined first pressure, and controls the pressure control valve so that the internal pressure of the container becomes a second pressure higher than the predetermined first pressure while the second pump is operating.
1. A vacuum transfer device that is arranged between a process chamber and a load lock chamber and transfers a substrate between the process chamber and the load lock chamber, comprising:
a container connected to each of the process chamber and the load lock chamber via a gate valve;
a transfer device provided inside the container and configured to transfer the substrate between the process chamber and the load lock chamber;
an exhaust device configured to exhaust a gas in the container and including a turbo molecular pump and a dry pump;
a dew-point meter configured to measure a dew-point temperature of the gas in the container;
a gas supply device configured to supply an inert gas into the container and including a pressure control valve; and
a control device configured to determine whether or not a process is ready to be executed, based on the dew-point temperature measured by the dew-point meter, and when the process is ready to be executed, notify a user of the vacuum transfer device that the process is ready to be executed,
wherein the control device includes:
a determination part configured to determine whether or not the dew-point temperature is equal to or lower than a predetermined first temperature after an interior of the container is opened to atmosphere and sealed again; and
a controller configured to notify the user that the process is ready to be executed, when all of a plurality of predetermined conditions are satisfied, including one condition that the dew-point temperature is determined to be equal to or lower than the predetermined first temperature by the determination part, and
wherein the controller operates the turbo molecular pump and the dry pump to exhaust the gas in the container, stops the operation of the turbo molecular pump when an internal pressure of the container is equal to or lower than a predetermined first pressure, and controls the pressure control valve so that the internal pressure of the container becomes a second pressure higher than the predetermined first pressure while the dry pump is operating.
11. The vacuum transfer device of Claim 10, wherein when the determination part determines that the dew-point temperature is equal to or higher than a predetermined second temperature while the process chamber is processing the substrate, the controller notifies an error to the user of the vacuum transfer device.
2. The vacuum transfer device of claim 1, wherein when the determination part determines that the dew-point temperature is equal to or higher than a predetermined second temperature while the process chamber is processing the substrate, the controller notifies an error to the user of the vacuum transfer device.
12. The vacuum transfer device of Claim 11, wherein the container is provided with a heater configured to heat an inner wall surface of the container, and wherein the controller heats the wall surface by supplying power to the heater after the interior of the container is opened to the atmosphere and sealed again.
3. The vacuum transfer device of claim 2, wherein the container is provided with a heater configured to heat an inner wall surface of the container, and
wherein the controller heats the wall surface by supplying power to the heater after the interior of the container is opened to the atmosphere and sealed again.
13. The vacuum transfer device of Claim 12, wherein when the determination part determines that the dew-point temperature is equal to or lower than the predetermined first temperature, the controller stops the heating of the wall surface by the heater by stopping the supply of the power to the heater.
4. The vacuum transfer device of claim 3, wherein when the determination part determines that the dew-point temperature is equal to or lower than the predetermined first temperature, the controller stops the heating of the wall surface by the heater by stopping the supply of the power to the heater.
14. The vacuum transfer device of Claim 10, wherein the controller controls the pressure control valve so that the internal pressure of the container becomes higher than a pressure of the process chamber before the gate valve between the process chamber and the container is opened.
5. The vacuum transfer device of claim 1, wherein the controller controls the pressure control valve so that the internal pressure of the container becomes higher than a pressure of the process chamber before the gate valve between the process chamber and the container is opened.
15. The vacuum transfer device of Claim 10, wherein the container is provided with a heater configured to heat an inner wall surface of the container, and wherein the controller heats the wall surface by supplying power to the heater after the interior of the container is opened to the atmosphere and sealed again.
3. The vacuum transfer device of claim 2, wherein the container is provided with a heater configured to heat an inner wall surface of the container, and
wherein the controller heats the wall surface by supplying power to the heater after the interior of the container is opened to the atmosphere and sealed again.
16. A method of controlling a vacuum transfer device including a container arranged between a process chamber and a load lock chamber,
a transfer device provided inside the container and configured to transfer a substrate between the process chamber and the load lock chamber,
an exhaust device configured to exhaust a gas in the container and including a first pump and a second pump, and a gas supply device configured to supply an inert gas into the container and including a pressure control valve,
the method comprising:
determining whether or not a dew-point temperature of the gas in the container measured by a dew-point meter provided inside the container is equal to or lower than a predetermined first temperature after an interior of the container is opened to atmosphere and sealed again; and
determining that a process is ready to be executed, when a plurality of predetermined conditions are satisfied, including one condition that the dew-point temperature is determined to be equal to or lower than the predetermined first temperature,
wherein the first pump and the second pump are operated to exhaust the gas in the container, the first pump is stopped when an internal pressure of the container is equal to or lower than a predetermined first pressure, and the pressure control valve is controlled so that the internal pressure of the container becomes a second pressure higher than the predetermined first pressure while the second pump is operating.
6. A method of controlling a vacuum transfer device including a container arranged between a process chamber and a load lock chamber,
a transfer device provided inside the container and configured to transfer a substrate between the process chamber and the load lock chamber, an exhaust device configured to exhaust a gas in the container and including a turbo molecular pump and a dry pump, and a gas supply device configured to supply an inert gas into the container and including a pressure control valve, the method comprising:
determining whether or not a dew-point temperature of the gas in the container measured by a dew-point meter provided inside the container is equal to or lower than a predetermined first temperature after an interior of the container is opened to atmosphere and sealed again; and
notifying a user of the vacuum transfer device that a process is ready to be executed,
when all of a plurality of predetermined conditions are satisfied, including one condition that the dew-point temperature is determined to be equal to or lower than the predetermined first temperature,
wherein the turbo molecular pump and the dry pump are operated to exhaust the gas in the container, the turbo molecular pump is stopped when an internal pressure of the container is equal to or lower than a predetermined first pressure, and the pressure control valve is controlled so that the internal pressure of the container becomes a second pressure higher than the predetermined first pressure while the dry pump is operating.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEL N BABAA whose telephone number is (571)270-3272. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 EST.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)-270-5054. 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.
/NAEL N BABAA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights