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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears the word “to” is missing in line 19 (“transferred the first” should read “transferred to the first”). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Each of the independent claims (claims 1, 8 and 16) include load lock chamber/s configured to receive a front opening unified pod (FOUP). This is inconsistent with the disclosure though as 210 is noted as an index robot that moves wafers from the FOUPs on the load ports 100 and into the load lock chamber. There is no teaching of how the FOUP can be loaded into the load lock chamber or how it can be manipulated (i.e., rotated) in order to provide the transfer robot access to the wafers. As best understood, the FOUPs are placed on the load ports (100) where they stay and are loaded/unloaded by the index robot which transfers the wafers to the load lock where they can then be accessed by the transfer robot for processing. Clarification is necessary.
Claims 1-20 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.
As discussed above each of the independent claims (claims 1, 8 and 16) include load lock chamber/s configured to receive a front opening unified pod (FOUP). This renders the claims indefinite, as it is inconsistent with the disclosure and it is not clear how a FOUP could be loaded into the load lock chamber in the system as disclosed. Furthermore, it is unclear how a FOUP located in the load lock chamber would be manipulated in order to provide the transfer robot access to the wafers for removal and processing.
The claims further discuss a front opening unified pod (FOUP) that stores a plurality of wafers. Later in the claims some portion of the plurality of wafers are discussed as “in-process wafers” which have been removed from the load lock chamber and transferred to the process chamber. This is indefinite, as it is not clear what constitutes “the plurality of wafers” as the number of wafers in the load lock chamber varies over time as they are removed for processing. Thus, it is unclear when the plurality is being determined and if it is limited to those wafers in the pod or all the wafers that were initially in the pod. Furthermore, it seems if a pod full of unprocessed wafers was loaded into the system it would just keep cleaning the chamber as the number of unprocessed wafers would always be above the preset value. Clarification is necessary.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would likely 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not appear to teach initiating a cleaning of the process chamber based on a number of unprocessed wafers in a pod/load lock chamber when considered in combination with the other features of the claim but a final patentably determination cannot be made until the 112 issues presented above are resolved.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional cited references include systems and determining when to initiate the cleaning of processing chamber.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK C HAGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45 (PST).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
/MARK C HAGEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights