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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on October 21st, 2024, has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the activation system and the alignment system must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: "activation system" in claim 8 and "alignment system" in claim 9 “Activation system” is interpreted as an actuator (pg13, L20-21).
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 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.
Claim limitation “alignment system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is nothing in the specification that details what an alignment system is, and it is also not shown in the drawings. 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.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-10 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 1, L1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. This claim will be interpreted as if the term “substantially” was removed.
Claim 5 is rendered indefinite for reciting “optionally the polymer comprises polyether ether ketone.” It is unclear whether this is a limitation or not.
The term “substantially” in claim 7, L1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. This claim will be interpreted as if the term “substantially” was removed.
Claim 9 is rendered indefinite for reciting “the semiconductor processing system of claim 9.” It is unclear how claim 9 can depend on itself. This claim will be interpreted as if it depends on claim 7.
The term “substantially” in claim 10, L3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. This claim will be interpreted as if the term “substantially” was removed.
Claims 2-4, 6, and 8 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al (US 20020029963), hereafter Yoshioka.
With regards to claim 1, Yoshioka discloses a workpiece holder (Abstract Fig. 7A) for holding a planar, quadrilateral workpiece (Article worked upon by an apparatus; MPEP 2115) in a processing chamber of a wet or semiconductor processing system, the workpiece holder being adapted for insertion into and removal from the processing chamber while holding the workpiece, wherein the workpiece holder comprises: a support frame (hinge mechanism 115), first (first holding member 111) and second perimeter sealing plates (second holding member 112) attached to the support frame, each of the first and second perimeter sealing plates having respective interlocking features (pawls 120, ring retainers 119) attached thereto, and a locking plate (ring clamp 114), the locking plate being moveable relative to the support frame between a locked configuration in which the locking plate engages with the interlocking features of both the first and second perimeter sealing plates (Fig. 8, P0064), and an open configuration in which the locking is disengaged therefrom (Fig. 7A), wherein in the open configuration the first and second perimeter sealing plates may be separated sufficiently to allow the workpiece (wafer 116) to be inserted therebetween (Fig. 7A), and in the locked configuration the workpiece is clamped relative to the support frame (Fig. 8, P0064), and wherein the second perimeter sealing plate comprises a flexure (packing 113) biased to provide sealing force to the workpiece when the locking plate is in the locked configuration. Yoshioka does not directly disclose the first perimeter sealing plate comprises a flexure biased to provide sealing force to the workpiece when the locking plate is in the locked configuration. However, this is a simple duplication of parts and is therefore rendered obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a flexure on both perimeter sealing plates in order to provide extra protection for the workpiece (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B),
With regards to claim 2 Yoshioka discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Yoshioka further discloses a plurality of internal contact plates (conductive elements 117, 118) located between the first and second perimeter sealing plates, the internal contact plates providing electrical contact to the workpiece when the locking plate is in the locked configuration.
With regards to claim 3 Yoshioka discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Yoshioka does not directly disclose in which the locking plate is in electrical connection to the internal contact plates. However, this is a simple rearrangement of parts and is therefore rendered obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention based on what type of processing the holder is being used for.
With regards to claims 4-5 Yoshioka discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Yoshioka does not directly disclose what material the perimeter sealing plates are made of. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that this is known in the art and therefore rendered obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose an appropriate material based on balancing sealing efficiency with protecting the workpiece from damage.
With regards to claim 6 Yoshioka discloses all the elements of claim 2 as outlined above. Yoshioka does not directly disclose where the internal contact plates are separable from the first and second perimeter sealing plates. However, making things separable is considered to be obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for ease of maintenance and replacement of components (MPEP 2144.04.V.C)
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka, further in view of Liu et al. (US 20220382143), hereafter Liu.
With regards to claim 7 Yoshioka discloses a semiconductor processing system for processing a substantially planar, quadrilateral workpiece while loaded into the workpiece holder of claim 1 (Fig. 4), the system comprising: a processing chamber (plating bath 30) for wet chemical etch, cleaning or electrodeposition. Yoshida does not disclose a workpiece loader for loading the workpiece into the workpiece holder during a loading operation. However, Liu discloses and a workpiece loader for loading the workpiece into the workpiece holder during a loading operation (generally indicated by load port 14; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the workpiece loader as disclosed by Liu to the system disclosed by Yoshida in order to prevent damage to the workpiece.
With regards to claim 8, Yoshioka and Liu disclose all the elements of claim 7 as outlined above. Yoshioka does not disclose wherein the workpiece loader comprises: first and second chucks an end effector wherein the first and second chucks are configured to grip the first and second perimeter sealing plates, separating them sufficiently so that the end effector and workpiece may be inserted into the workpiece holder; and wherein the first and second chucks are configured to provide sufficient force to the first and second perimeter sealing plates so that the locking plate can be inserted between the interlocking features.
However, Liu discloses wherein the workpiece loader comprises: first and second chucks (lift pins 15), an end effector (blade 13 on transfer mechanism 12), wherein the first and second chucks are configured to grip the first and second perimeter sealing plates, separating them sufficiently so that the end effector and workpiece may be inserted into the workpiece holder (P0028); and wherein the first and second chucks are configured to provide sufficient force to the first and second perimeter sealing plates so that the locking plate can be inserted between the interlocking features (P0028). Therefore, the combination of Yoshioka and Liu discloses this feature. Liu does not disclose an activation system for sliding the locking plate between the locked and open configurations. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that this is known in the art and therefore is rendered obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in order for the holder to be able to function as intended.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka and Liu as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Moura et al. (US 20140147234) hereafter Moura.
With regards to claim 9 Yoshioka discloses all the elements of claim 7 as outlined above. Yoshioka and Liu do not disclose wherein the workpiece loader comprises an alignment system for aligning the workpiece with respect to the workpiece holder prior to inserting the workpiece into the workpiece holder.
However, Moura discloses an alignment system (105) that aligns a workpiece on a support(P0042). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have an alignment mechanism as disclosed by Moura in the system disclosed by Yoshioka and Liu to prevent damage to the workpiece ensuring it is seated properly in the workpiece holder.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka, Liu and Moura as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Hodos (US 5295777).
With regards to claim 10 Yoshioka, Liu and Moura disclose all the elements of claim 9 as outlined above. Yoshioka, Liu and Moura do not disclose wherein the workpiece loader comprises a rotation actuator for rotating the workpiece holder between a horizontal configuration and a vertical configuration.
However, Hodos discloses wherein a workpiece loader (holder 25) comprises a rotation actuator (turret 27) for rotating the workpiece holder between a horizontal configuration (Fig. 2) and a vertical configuration (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a rotation actuator as disclosed by Hodos to the workpiece loader as disclosed by Yoshioka and Liu, depending on the layout and space constraints of the processing chamber.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
US-12387958, US-20230148165, and US-20160108539 also disclose workpiece holders with sealing plates and a locking mechanism.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA LYNN BURKMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5824. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am to 6:00pm 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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571)272-7805. 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.
/J.L.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653
