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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 09/17/2024. The Office acknowledges the preliminary amendment submitted on 09/17/2024. Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 10-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation in claim 4 should read as “wherein the wafer loader has a micro-motion state where the wafer loader is able to float at least in the X-axis direction and [[a]]the Y-axis direction”
The limitation in claim 10 should read as “a step of axially connecting the fixed base connection portion on a lower side of the wafer loader and the wafer loader connection portion on an upper side of the moving plate”, since no upper or lower connection portion was specifically recited in claim 9 or claim 1.
The limitation in claim 11 should read as “and driving the wafer loader to further ascend or descend in the Z-axis direction to be close to the fixed base until the fixed base connection portion and the wafer loader connection portion are axially connected”.
The limitation in claim 12 should read as “step of driving the wafer loader to ascend or descend in the Z-axis direction to be close to the fixed base, fixed base connection portion and the wafer loader connection portion”.
The limitation in claim 13 should read as “of: a step of driving the wafer loader to ascend or descend in the Z-axis direction to be close to the fixed base until the fixed base connection portion and the wafer loader connection portion are connected”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“the sliding plate is able to move in the plane where the X-axis and the Y-axis are located to drive the wafer loader to move to the target position by means of an axial connection of the lower connection portion and the upper connection portion” in claim 2. Where in the instant case, axial connection means is interpreted per the applicant’s disclosure in claim 3, figure 9 and pp [0041] to include the following: the upper connection portion 53 at least comprises a first section 531 and a second section 532 which are arranged coaxially, wherein the inner diameter of the first section 531 matches the outer diameter of the lower connection portion 54, that is, the inner diameter of the first section 531 is equal to the outer diameter of the lower connection portion 54 in a case where the lower connection portion 54 is cylindrical. The inner diameter of the second section 532 is greater than the inner diameter of the first section 531, and the second section 532 is close to the lower connection portion 54. In this embodiment, a top end of the lower connection portion 54 is cut into a conical surface 541, and a necking section 533 is formed between the first section 531 and the second section 532. In this way, when the upper connection portion 53 and the lower connection portion 54 are connected axially, the lower connection portion 54 is inserted into the second section 532, or equivalents thereof.
“when the eccentric cam is driven to rotate by means of an external force, the moving plate moves in the plane where the X-axis and the Y-axis are located” in claims 5 and 16. Where in the instant case, the external force means is interpreted per the applicant’s disclosure in pp [0046] to include the following: a motor (551)
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.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 9-17 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 2 (Currently Amended), the limitation “a lower connection portion arranged on the moving plate” is indefinite because the term “moving plate” lacks proper antecedent basis. Is this supposed to be the sliding plate or a new component called the moving plate? For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “a lower connection portion arranged on the sliding plate”.
Claims 3 and 5-6 are rejected as being dependent on claim 2.
Regarding claims 3 (Currently Amended), 9 (Currently Amended), 10 (Currently Amended), 11 (Currently Amended), 12 (Currently Amended), 13 (Currently Amended), the term “close to” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 10-13 are rejected as being dependent on claim 9.
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended), the limitation “a step of driving the moving plate to further move with respect to the fixed base” is indefinite because the term “moving plate” lacks proper antecedent basis. Is this supposed to be the sliding plate or a new component called the moving plate? For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “a step of driving the sliding plate to further move with respect to the fixed base”.
Regarding claim 13 (Currently Amended), the limitation “a step of driving, by the moving plate, the wafer loader to move with respect to the fixed base in the Y-axis direction to reach the target position” is indefinite because the term “moving plate” lacks proper antecedent basis. Is this supposed to be the sliding plate or a new component called the moving plate? For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “a step of driving, by the sliding plate, the wafer loader to move with respect to the fixed base in the Y-axis direction to reach the target position”.
Regarding claim 14 (Currently Amended), the limitation “switching the wafer loader to the micro-motion state where the wafer loader is able to float in the X-axis direction and the Y-axis direction” is indefinite because the term “the micro-motion state” lacks proper antecedent basis. The micro-motion state is recited in claim 4, not in claim 1.
Claims 15-17 are rejected as being dependent on claim 14.
Regarding claim 16 (Currently Amended), the limitation “one portion of the connection mechanism to move to the target position in the plane where the X-axis and the Y- axis are located” is indefinite because the term “one portion” is confusing and unclear. The term one portion could refer to the fixed base connection portion or the wafer loader connection portion and is unclear which portion is actually being referenced.
Regarding claim 17 (Currently Amended), the limitation “wherein the target position is stored in the storage unit” is indefinite because the term “the storage unit” lacks proper antecedent basis. The storage unit is not recited within claim 14 or claim 1 but is recited in claim 6.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalenian et al (US PGPUB No. 2006/0035563) in view of Miyazaki et al (US PGPUB No. 2009/0305612), hereinafter referred to as Kalenian and Miyazaki, respectively.
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Kalenian discloses a wafer polishing system [Kalenian, fig 1, 120], comprising:
a wafer transfer device [Kalenian, fig 2, 230], comprises a fixed base [Kalenian, fig 6, 32] and a wafer loader for carrying a wafer [Kalenian, fig 4, 31]; and
a polishing module [Kalenian, fig 2, 234 and 240], being arranged on a side of the wafer transfer channel and being able to pick up the wafer from the wafer loader to polish the wafer [Kalenian, page 3, pp 0062 and fig 2, showing 234 is able to load a wafer from 230 to the table 234 and to polish the wafer];
wherein a connection mechanism is arranged between the fixed base and the wafer loader [Kalenian, figs 4 and 6, 29], and the connection mechanism has a portion connected to the fixed base [Kalenian, fig 6, 14 of 29 is connected to 32] and a portion connected to the wafer loader [Kalenian, figs 6 and 4, showing 15 is connected to 28 via 30];
when the two portions of the connection mechanism are connected, the wafer loader and the fixed base are limited [Kalenian, fig 6 and 4, showing that when 14 and 15 are connected that the movement of 30 and 32 are limited and connected together], and the connection mechanism is able to move in a plane where an X-axis and a Y-axis are located to drive the wafer loader to move to a target position in the plane where the X-axis and the Y-axis are located [Kalenian, fig 6, showing that 29 is capable of X and Y movement by rails 11].
Kalenian does not explicitly disclose the fixed base being able to drive the wafer loader to move in a wafer transfer channel in an X-axis direction.
Miyazaki teaches a wafer polishing system [Miyazaki, fig 1], comprising:
a wafer transfer device [Miyazaki, fig 1, 6], comprises a fixed base [Miyazaki, fig 15, 134] and a wafer loader for carrying a wafer [Miyazaki, fig 15, 122/123 and/or 124], and the fixed base being able to drive the wafer loader to move in a wafer transfer channel in an X-axis direction [Miyazaki, fig 15, 134 includes tacks 136 and servomotors 138 that is able to drive 122/123 and/or 124 in a X-axis]; and
a polishing module, being arranged on a side of the wafer transfer channel and being able to pick up the wafer from the wafer loader to polish the wafer [Miyazaki, fig 1, 3 which includes at least 3A-D polishing modules].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added to the fixed base of Kalenian a rail to be attached an a rail base so the fixed base of Kalenian would travel along a rail by servo motor as taught by Miyazaki because this allows for a multiple wafers to be transferred underneath and above other wafers in process to a plurality of wafer transfer stations which reduces processing times over a plurality of wafers [Miyazaki, page 14, pp 0212, summarized].
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Kalenian as modified further discloses the wafer polishing system according to Claim 1, wherein the wafer loader has a micro-motion state where the wafer loader is able to float at least in the X-axis direction and a Y-axis direction [Kalenian, fig 6, 11 is capable of floating within the X and Y axes], and the wafer loader in the micro-motion state is limited with respect to the fixed base by means of the connection mechanism to be switched from the micro-motion state to a stationary state [Kalenian, fig 6 and page 6, pp 0078 teaching that 11 is both positional and securable, showing that 11 can be switched between a positioning state and a securing state].
Regarding claims 7 (Currently Amended) and 8 (Currently Amended), Kalenian as modified further discloses the wafer polishing system according to Claim 1, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the target position is a position exactly opposite to a clamping jaw to overcome a deviation of the wafer loader in the plane where the X-axis and the Y-axis are located when the fixed base moves in the X- axis direction to different stations (clm 7);
wherein at least two said clamping jaws are arranged, at least one said clamping jaw is used for picking and placing non-polished wafers, and at least one said clamping jaw is used for picking and placing polished wafers (clm 8).
Miyazaki further teaches wherein the target position is a position opposite to a clamping jaw [Miyazaki, fig 27, 12 includes a clamping jaw 170 which is positioned exactly over a respective 124 or 125]; wherein at least two said clamping jaws are arranged, [Miyazaki, fig 1, showing 11 and 12 are clamping jaws used, one used for non-polished wafers (11) and one for polished wafers (12)]..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kalenian to include the clamping jaws of Miyazaki to position the jaws relative to the wafer loader as taught by Miyazaki because these clamping jaws are also able to handle various sizes of wafers which increases the type of work the apparatus is able to do and is more useful to the owner of such an apparatus.
The office notes that MPEP 2114(II) recites "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Where in the instant case the following limitations are considered intended use:
“wherein the target position is a position exactly opposite to the clamping jaw to overcome a deviation of the wafer loader in the plane where the X-axis and the Y-axis are located when the fixed base moves in the X- axis direction to different stations” is a recitation of intended use in that the clamping jaw of Miyazaki and the wafer loader of Kalenian are able to perform the function as specified because the combination teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim.
“at least one said clamping jaw is used for picking and placing non-polished wafers, and at least one said clamping jaw is used for picking and placing polished wafers” is a recitation of intended use in the both clamping jaws 11 and 12 are able to perform both functions as specified within the claim and the combination teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 9 (Currently Amended), Kalenian as modified further discloses a loading method for the wafer polishing system according to Claim 1 comprising the following steps of:
a step of driving one portion of the connection mechanism to move with respect to the fixed base in the plane where the X-axis and the Y-axis are located [Kalenian, fig 6, 11 is capable of moved with respect to 32 in the plane of the X and Y axes are located];
a step of driving the wafer loader to ascend or descend in a Z-axis direction to be close to the fixed base [Kalenian, fig 12, 8 of 30 moves 31 vertically and fig 15, 1532 and adjacent to ]; and
a step of axially connecting the connection mechanism and the wafer loader [Kalenian, figs 6 and 4, showing that 29 is connected to 31];
wherein, the three steps are performed sequentially, in an overlapped manner, or synchronously [Kalenian, figs 6 and 4, showing that all steps above are done in an overlapped manner];
in this way, the wafer loader is moved to the target position in the plane where the X-axis and the Y-axis are located [Kalenian, figs 6, showing that 31 is moved by 29].
Regarding claim 10 (Currently Amended), Kalenian as modified further discloses The loading method for the wafer polishing system according to Claim 9, wherein comprising the following steps of: a step of driving the moving plate to move with respect to the fixed base in the plane where the X-axis and the Y-axis are located [Kalenian, fig 6, 11 drives in the X and Y axes]; a step of driving the wafer loader to ascend or descend in the Z-axis direction to be close to the fixed base [Kalenian, fig 12, 8 drives 30 to move 31 in the Z-axis]; and a step of axially connecting the upper connection portion on a lower side of the wafer loader and the lower connection portion on an upper side of the moving plate [Kalenian, figs 6 and 4, showing that there is a connection between 29 and 31]; wherein, the three steps are performed sequentially, in an overlapped manner, or synchronously [Kalenian, fig 6, the steps are overlapped and may happen in any given time frame]; in this way, the wafer loader is moved to the target position in the plane where the X-axis and the Y-axis are located [Kalenian, figs 6 and 6, 31 is moved in the X and Y axes by 11].
Regarding claim 12 (Currently Amended), Kalenian as modified further discloses the loading method for the wafer polishing system according to Claim 9, comprising the following steps of a step of driving the moving plate to move with respect to the fixed base in the plane where the X-axis and the Y-axis are located to reach the target position [Kalenian, fig 6, 11 drives in the X and Y axes]; and a step of driving the wafer loader to ascend or descend in the Z-axis direction to be close to the fixed base unit [Kalenian, fig 12, 8 drives 30 to move 31 in the Z-axis] the upper connection portion and the lower connection portion are axially connected Kalenian, figs 6 and 4, showing that there is a connection between 29 and 31].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 11, and 13-17 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include 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:
Regarding claim 2 (Currently Amended), Kalenian et al (US PGPUB No. 2006/0035563) teaches wherein the connection mechanism comprises: a sliding plate movably arranged on the fixed base by means of a sliding rail [Kalenian, fig 6, 14 mounted to 11]; an upper connection portion arranged on the wafer loader [Kalenian, fig 6, 15 mounted to the bottom of fig 4, 28]; and a lower connection portion arranged on the moving plate [Kalenian, fig 6, showing another connection point of 14 connected to an 11].
The prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “wherein, the sliding plate is able to move in the plane where the X-axis and the Y-axis are located to drive the wafer loader to move to the target position by means of an axial connection of the lower connection portion and the upper connection portion” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim.
Claim(s) 3 and 5-6 would be allowed as being dependent on claim 2.
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended), the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “driving the wafer loader to further ascend or descend in the Z-axis direction to be close to the fixed base until the upper connection portion and the lower connection portion are axially connected” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim. Where the prior art does not teach the ascending or descending until the connection portions are axially connected because while the connection happens as some moment in time in the prior when the apparatus is first assembled, this connection is specific to during the ascending or descending and happens until a specified condition, which is not taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 13 (Currently Amended), the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “a step of driving the wafer loader to ascend or descend in the Z-axis direction to be close to the fixed base until the upper connection portion and the lower connection portion are connected;” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim. Where the prior art does not teach the ascending or descending until the connection portions are axially connected because while the connection happens as some moment in time in the prior when the apparatus is first assembled, this connection is specific to during the ascending or descending and happens until a specified condition, which is not taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 14 (Currently Amended), the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “a step of connecting and limiting the wafer loader and the fixed base by means of the connection mechanism to allow the wafer loader to be located at a position exactly opposite to a target position of a clamping jaw and placing the wafer on the wafer loader by the clamping jaw” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim. Where the prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see the rejection of claim 7), however in method claims, this recitation is given the proper patentable weight according to the prior art and while the prior art may be capable, the prior art is silent regarding this specified step of the method.
Claim(s) 15-17 would be allowed as being dependent on claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Takahashi et al (US PGPUB No. 2009/0067959) teaches a wafer transfer station.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights