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: “fastening member,” “auxiliary fastening member,” and “seating member”
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.
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/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 12, the recitation “the seating member is formed of either PBI (Poly-Benzimidazole (Celazole)) or carbon PEEK (Carbon 30% content, Polyether Ether Ketone)” is unclear. It is unclear if the parentheticals are claimed, or are merely optional descriptors. Further, the use of trademarks is improper (Celazole, which also lacks a symbol indicating use in commerce) and renders the claim indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05 u).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 15, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Fan (CN115662928A).
Regarding claim 1, Fan discloses a cooling station (Fig. 1-5, 7) comprising: a lower plate (flange 1); an upper plate (top plate 5) spaced apart from the lower plate; a support structure (three rods 2 opposite 52) having ends installed on the lower plate and the upper plate, respectively; and a seating member (teeth 4) installed on the support structure for a wafer (wafter 3) to be seated on the seating member, wherein the seating member has an inclined portion (see inclination angle of 4. 1-4 degrees, Page 7 of translation), wherein the wafer is seated on the inclined portion.
Regarding claim 2, Fan discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Fan further discloses the inclined portion includes an inclined surface (see front surface thereof) disposed at a front end of the seating member and inclined downwardly from a region of the seating member toward a center of the lower plate, wherein the region of the seating member is in contact with the wafer (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 15, Fan discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Fan further discloses the three support structures (rods 2) are arranged to be spaced apart from each other in a circumferential direction between the lower plate and the upper plate.
Regarding claim 19, Fan discloses a cooling station (Fig. 1-5, 7) comprising: a lower plate (1); an upper plate (5) spaced apart from the lower plate; a support structure (2) having ends installed on the lower plate and the upper plate, respectively; and a seating member (4) installed on the support structure for a wafer to be seated on the seating member, wherein the wafer (3) is in contact with a line or a point (see contact line of Fig. 7) of the seating member.
Regarding claim 20, Fan discloses the limitations of claim 19, and Fan further discloses the seating member includes an inclined surface (see inclination angle 1-4 degrees of 4), wherein the inclined surface is inclined downwardly from a region, which contacts the wafer (3), of the seating member toward a center of the lower plate.
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, 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(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (CN115662928A).
Regarding claim 3, Fan teaches the limitations of claim 2, and Fan further teaches the inclined surface has a slope of about 1-4 degrees, overlapping the claimed range of about 3° to about 10°. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 4, Fan teaches the limitations of claim 3, and Fan further teaches the wafer is in contact with a line of the seating member (see Fig. 7).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (CN115662928A) in view of Kim (KR1020170075102A).
Regarding claim 5, Fan teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Fan does not teach the inclined portion includes a curved surface, and a center line of the seating member passes through a convex portion of the curved surface.
Kim teaches a curved surface (321a), and a center line (see center line 3211a) of the seating member passes through a convex portion (321a) of the curved surface (see Fig. 7 & “curved surface” - Page 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fan to include the curved surface of Kim, in order to minimize contact between the wafer and support (Page 2 of translation).
Regarding claim 6, Fan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 5, and Fan as modified further teaches the curved surface has a step difference may be adjusted as desired (see Page 6, angles theta 1 & 2 may be 1-5 degrees), however, fails to teach wherein the step difference is between about 0.3 mm to about 1 mm. Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fan to include the claimed range, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II)
Regarding claim 7, Fan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 6, and Fan as modified further teaches the wafer contacts a point of the seating member (as modified above).
Claim(s) 8-11, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (CN115662928A) in view of Blanchard (US20210296146A1).
Regarding claim 8/18, Fan teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Fan does not teach the support structure and the seating member are coupled to each other by a fastening member that is installed through the support structure, wherein the seating member includes a support portion extending backwardly into a side of the support structure.
Blanchard teaches (see Fig. 2C) the support structure (131) and the seating member (141) are coupled to each other by a fastening member (fastener 143) that is installed through the support structure, wherein the seating member includes a support portion (see rear portion of 141 extending into 131) extending backwardly into a side of the support structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fan to include fastening configuration of Blanchard, in order to provide a removable shelf configuration (¶[0007]).
Regarding claim 9, Fan teaches the limitations of claim 8, and Blanchard further teaches an auxiliary fastening member (metal fingers 142) disposed to be adjacent to the fastening member and fastening the seating member to the support structure.
Regarding claim 10, Fan teaches the limitations of claim 9, and Blanchard further teaches the auxiliary fastening member is a pin (metal finger 142).
Regarding claim 11, Fan teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Fan does not teach the
wherein the seating member includes a polyimide resin (¶[0027]).
Blanchard teaches wherein the seating member includes a polyimide resin (¶[0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fan to include the polyimide resin of Blanchard, in order to provide a durable contact surface (¶[0027]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (CN115662928A) in view of Wong (US20170117170A1).
Regarding claim 12, Fan teaches the limitations of claim 11, and Fan does not teach
wherein the seating member is formed carbon PEEK.
Wong teaches wherein the seating member is formed carbon PEEK (¶[0175]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fan to include the seating member material of Wong, in order to prevent scratching (¶[0175]).
Claim(s) 8, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (CN115662928A) in view of Yi (US5577621A).
Regarding claim 8, Fan teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Fan does not teach the support structure and the seating member are coupled to each other by a fastening member that is installed through the support structure.
Yi teaches (see Fig. 1-3) the support structure (20) and the seating member (10) are coupled to each other by a fastening member (bolt, unlabeled in Fig. 3) that is installed through the support structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fan to include fastenting member of Yi, in order to fixedly secure the elements (Col. 1, lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 13, Fan teaches the limitations of claim 8, and Yi further teaches wherein a front end of the fastening member includes an engaging portion that is inserted into a fixing recess (recess through which bolt is fastened, unlabeled in Fig. 3) that is formed in the seating member.
Regarding claim 14, Fan teaches the limitations of claim 13, and Yi further teaches the support structure includes a through-hole (hole through which bolt passes, unlabeled in Fig. 3) so that a rear end of the fastening member passes therethrough.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (CN115662928A) in view of Guo (CN115440614A).
Regarding claims 16-17, Fan teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Fan does not teach . wherein the upper plate includes a transparent window that is disposed above the support structure and wherein the upper plate includes a central transparent window that is disposed in a center thereof.
Guo teaches (see Fig. 1) the upper plate (12) includes a transparent window (14) that is disposed above the support structure (23) and wherein the upper plate includes a central transparent window that is disposed in a center thereof (see location of 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fan to include the window of Guo, in order to monitor the condition of the process chamber (Page 6 of translation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S RUPPERT whose telephone number is (571)272-9911. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights