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:
freezing device 30 and lifting/lowering device 50 in claim 1;
rotational driving device 41 and support member 110 and locking member 120 in claims 8 and 9, which have the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification.
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 § 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manabu (JP 2020-72249 A).
Manabu describes a substrate processing device comprising:
a placement base (56) which is provided inside a processing vessel (10) and has a substrate (W) placed thereon [abstract: a stage device and a processing device which can rotate a mounted substrate while being cooled to an extremely low temperature and have high cooling performance];
a refrigeration device (52, 54, see paragraphs [0035] and [0036] and fig. 3B) having a contact surface (upper surface of 54b) which is placed in contact with or moved away from a contacted surface (lower surface of 56c) of the placement base, and cools the placement base; and
a raising/lowering device (mechanism for raising/lowering a refrigeration and heat transfer body 54 (including a second heat transfer portion 54b), see paragraph [0036]) for raising/lowering the refrigeration device and for generating a pressing force to press the refrigeration device against the placement base. [ The processing apparatus 1 also includes an elevating mechanism 74 that elevates and lowers the entire stage device 50 with respect to the vacuum container 10. Thereby, the distance between the target 30 and the wafer W can be controlled. Specifically, by raising and lowering the stage device 50 by the raising and lowering mechanism 74, the position of the stage 56 is changed between the transfer position when the wafer W is placed on the stage 56 and the wafer W placed on the stage 56. It can be moved to and from the processing position when performing the membrane.]
PNG
media_image1.png
589
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shinji (JP 2016-53202 A).
Shinji describes a substrate processing device comprising: a placement base (2, 3) which is provided inside a processing vessel (1) and has a substrate (4) placed thereon;
a refrigeration device (5) having a contact surface (upper surface of 5b) which is placed in
contact with or moved away from a contacted surface (lower surface of 2) of the placement base, and cools the placement base; and
a raising/lowering device for raising/lowering the refrigeration device and for generating a
pressing force to press the refrigeration device against the placement base (paragraph [0031]
indicates that: "either of the placement base 2 and the refrigeration mechanism 5 may be moved", in which case, when it is the refrigeration mechanism 5 which is moved, it is considered that a raising/lowering device for raising/lowering the refrigeration mechanism 5 is provided).
PNG
media_image2.png
234
330
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Isao (JP 2013-4810 A).
Isao describes a substrate processing device comprising: a placement base (1-3) which is provided inside a processing vessel (paragraph [0002] describes usage in a step such as CVD film formation or etching, in which case it can be considered that such a step would normally be performed inside a vacuum chamber (processing vessel), and, even if there were a difference, this difference would merely involve adding a well-known and conventional feature), and has a substrate (wafer) placed thereon;
a refrigeration device (16, see paragraphs [0048] and [0049]) having a contact surface (upper surface of 16) which is placed in contact with or moved away from a contacted surface (lower surface of 3) of the placement base, and cools the placement base; and
a raising/lowering device (see paragraph [0048]) having an air cylinder for raising/lowering the refrigeration device and for generating a pressing force to press the refrigeration device against the placement base.
PNG
media_image3.png
186
267
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manabu (JP 2020-72249 A) or Shinji (JP 2016-53202 A) or Isao (JP 2013-4810 A) in view of Tatsuhisa (JP 2002-368062 A).
Manabu, Shinji and Isao do not explicitly disclose a differential pressure in the raising/lowering device.
Tatsuhisa disclose utilizing, as the raising/lowering device, a vertically upward force resulting from a differential pressure between an internal space and an external space of the processing vessel constitutes a well-known feature (in particular see paragraphs [0026] and [0036], and fig. 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Manabu, Shinji or Isao by adopting this well-known feature in the raising/lowering device.
PNG
media_image4.png
538
242
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manabu (JP 2020-72249 A) or Shinji (JP 2016-53202 A) in view of Isao (JP 2013-4810 A).
Manabu, Shinji do not explicitly disclose air cylinder as the raising/lowering device.
Isao discloses using an air cylinder as the raising/lowering device that constitutes a well-known feature (in particular see paragraph [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Manabu or Shinji by adopting this well-known feature as a raising/lowering device.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manabu (JP 2020-72249 A) or Shinji (JP 2016-53202 A) in view of Tatsuhisa (JP 2002-368062 A) and, in further view of Isao (JP 2013-4810 A).
Manabu, Shinji in view of Tatsuhisa do not explicitly disclose air cylinder as the raising/lowering device.
Isao discloses using an air cylinder as the raising/lowering device that constitutes a well-known feature (in particular see paragraph [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Manabu or Shinji in view of Tatsuhisa by adopting this well-known feature as a raising/lowering device.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manabu (JP 2020-72249 A) or Shinji (JP 2016-53202 A) in view of Isao (JP 2013-4810 A) or over Isao and, in further in view of Mitsuhiro (JP 2004-235291 A).
Manabu, Shinji, and Isao do not explicitly disclose a lever structure in the raising/lowering device.
Mitsuhiro discloses using a lever structure as the raising/lowering device that constitutes a well-known feature (in particular see paragraphs [0015], [0016] and [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Manabu, Shinji or Isao by adopting this well-known feature in the raising/lowering device.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manabu (JP 2020-72249 A) or Shinji (JP 2016-53202 A) and Tatsuhisa (JP 2002-368062 A) in view of Isao (JP 2013-4810 A) and, in further view of Mitsuhiro (JP 2004-235291 A).
Manabu, Shinji, Tatsuhisa and Isao do not explicitly disclose a lever structure in the raising/lowering device.
Mitsuhiro discloses using a lever structure as the raising/lowering device that constitutes a well-known feature (in particular see paragraphs [0015], [0016] and [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Manabu, Shinji, Tatsuhisa or Isao by adopting this well-known feature in the raising/lowering device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NAKAGAWASAI (US 20200135434 A1) discloses “a stage device includes a stage configured to hold a target substrate in a vacuum chamber, a cold heat transfer body fixedly disposed below a bottom surface of the stage with a gap between the stage and the cold heat transfer body and cooled to an extremely low temperature by a chiller disposed below the cold heat transfer body, and cooling fluid supplied to the gap to transfer cold heat of the cold heat transfer body to the stage. The stage device further includes a stage support configured to rotatably support the stage and formed in a cylindrical shape to surround an upper part of the cold heat transfer body wherein the stage support has a vacuum insulation structure, and a rotation part configured to support the stage support and rotated by a driving mechanism while being sealed with magnetic fluid.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Parviz Hassanzadeh whose telephone number is (571)272-1435. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-1446. 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.
/PARVIZ HASSANZADEH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights