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
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following antecedent basis informalities:
Claim 1, ll. 10, consider amending to, --a top cooling plate attached to [[the]]a top of the level regulator;--
Claim 1, ll. 11, consider amending to, --a ceramic shaft configured to guide [[the]]a rise and fall of a ceramic plate at [[the]]a center of—
Claim 1, ll. 13, consider amending to, --a lifting shaft configured to insert into [[the]]an inside of the ceramic shaft and to connect—
Claim 2, ll. 2, consider amending to, --a buffer member configured to surround the ceramic shaft at [[the]]a bottom of the top—
Claim 2, ll. 4, consider amending to, --a bottom cooling plate configured to couple to one end of the ceramic shaft at [[the]]a—
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) are:
“a guide unit configured to move upward or downward along the guide track” in claim 1.
“a buffer member configured to surround the ceramic shaft at a bottom of the top cooling plate” in claim 2.
“a reinforcement member configured to connect the pair of side plates” in claim 7.
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.
Figs. 1-2 discloses the sufficient structure for the “guide unit” is a plate or equivalent structure.
Fig. 1 discloses the sufficient structure for “the buffer member” is cover or equivalent thereof.
Fig. 2 discloses the sufficient structure for the “reinforcement member” is a plate or equivalent 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 1-7 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an internal space of the base" in ll. 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear to the Examiner whether “an internal space of the base” on ll. 7 is the same “space” introduced in ll. 3 of the claim, wherein the gantry-type base “has a space formed inside.” As best understood and for examination purposes, “an internal space” in ll. 7 and “a space” in ll. 3 are the same spaces defined by the base.
Claim 1, ll. 7, --a linker formed in the space of the base and configured to connect to the guide—
Claim 3 recites the limitations “the bottom cooling plate” and “a buffer member” in ll. 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear to the Examiner whether claim 3 should be dependent on claim 2, which introduces “a bottom cooling plate” and “a buffer member” or whether claim 3 should remain dependent on claim 1. As best understood and for examination purposes, claim 3 remains dependent on claim 1 and “a bottom cooling plate” is introduced.
Claim 3, ll. 2, --of the top cooling plate and [[the]]a bottom cooling plate, a first area in which a buffer member is—
Claims 2 and 4-7 are rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(b) since they are dependent on claim 1.
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 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR2024/0003924 (KR’924), as provided in IDS filed on 10/30/2024 and translation provided by the Examiner, in view of Lubomirsky (US 2013/0284374).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, KR2024/0003924 (KR’924), as provided in IDS filed on 10/30/2024 and translation provided by the Examiner, discloses a lifting device (fig. 3) mounted to a substrate deposition equipment (pp. [0044]; fig. 1), the lifting device comprising:
a gantry-type base (includes items 310, 500, 501; figs. 3-4 and 6) including a top plate (item 310; fig. 3) and a pair of side plates (items 500, 501; figs. 3-4 and 6a) and having a space (defined as internal space in which top plate 310 and side plates 500 surround, i.e. enclose; fig. 3) formed inside;
a guide track (defined as rail section on inner side of plate 500, i.e. including item 510; pp. [0056 -0058]; designated in annotated fig. 6b below) formed on each of the pair of side plates that faces each other (rail section is defined on inner side of each plate 500, i.e. sides that face other opposing side plates 500; figs. 3-4);
a guide unit (designated in annotated fig. 6b below) configured to move upward or downward along the guide track (pp. [0056] and [0058]; linker 400, which mounts directly to guide unit along the rail, moves upward and downward along guide track via servo motor 600, thereby capable of move the guide unit upward and downward simultaneously);
a linker (item 400; figs. 4-6) formed in the space of the base (linker 400 is formed within space, i.e. internal boundary, of base plate walls) and configured to connect to the guide unit (linker 400 directly mounts to guide unit; fig. 6b below);
PNG
media_image1.png
338
531
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6b.
a level regulator (item 800; figs. 6-7) attached to the linker (pp. [0051]; portion 820 of level regulator is coupled to linker 400; figs. 5a and 6b);
a shaft (designated in annotated fig. 3 below) configured to guide the rise and fall of a plate at the center of the top cooling plate (shaft is capable of guiding the rise and fall of a plate, as modified below); and
a lifting shaft (item 200; fig. 3) configured to insert into the inside of the shaft (annotated fig. 3 below) and to connect to a susceptor (pp. [0045] and [0047]; lifting shaft 200 connects to a susceptor 100; fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
540
439
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3.
Though KR’294 discloses a shaft and lifting shaft, KR’294 is silent on the details of these shafts, such as the shaft being a ceramic shaft configured to guide the rise and fall of a ceramic plate. Further, KR’294 does not explicitly disclose a top cooling plate attached to a top of the level regulator, and wherein the ceramic shaft is disposed at a center of the top plate.
However, Lubomirsky (US 2013/0284374) teaches a lifting device (item 100; fig. 1) used for supporting a substrate in a processing chamber operating at elevated temperatures (pp. [0017]; fig. 1), wherein the lifting device comprises a cooling means (item 126; pp. [0025]; fig. 1) including a top cooling plate (item 187; pp. [0035]; fig. 1), a bottom plate (item 190; pp. [0035]; fig. 1) and a cooling channel (items 194; pp. [0036]; fig. 1), and a ceramic shaft (item 124; fig. 1) configured to guide the rise and fall of a ceramic plate (item 122; pp. [0026]; fig. 1) at a center of a top of the cooling plate (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lifting device, as disclosed in KR’294, to include a ceramic shaft and a ceramic plate configured to be guided by the ceramic shaft and further, a cooling means with top cooling plate attached to a top of the level regulator (via intermediate components; corresponding to level regulator 800 in KR’294), as taught in Lubomirsky, in order to enhance thermal conductivity (pp. [0030] in Lubomirsky), enable the ceramic plate to heat the substrate to a desired temperature (pp. [0026-0028] in Lubomirsky), and provide temperature control to the lifting device (pp. [0018] and [0025] in Lubomirsky).
Regarding claim 2, KR’294 as modified discloses the lifting device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
a buffer member (item 330; figs. 3-4) configured to surround the ceramic shaft at a bottom of the top cooling plate (pp. [0063]; buffer member 330 is capable of surrounding ceramic shaft, designated in annotated fig. 4 below, which is disposed at a bottom of the top cooling plate via intermediate components); and
PNG
media_image3.png
502
479
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4.
a bottom cooling plate (Lubomirsky; item 190; pp. [0035]; fig. 1) configured to couple to one end of the ceramic shaft at a bottom of the buffer member (Lubomirsky; bottom cooling plate 190 extends downward from top cooling plate and is capable of coupling to one end, i.e. lower end, of ceramic shaft at a bottom, i.e. lower end, of buffer member; corresponding to shaft and buffer member in KR’294),
wherein a cooling channel (Lubomirsky; items 194; pp. [0036]; fig. 1) is included in the top cooling plate and the bottom cooling plate (Lubomirsky; cooling channel 194 extends through top and bottom cooling plates; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, KR’294 as modified discloses the lifting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the ceramic shaft is inserted at the center of the of the top cooling plate and the bottom cooling plate (as modified from Lubomirsky; ceramic shaft 124, corresponding to ceramic shaft in KR’294, is at the center of the top cooling plate 187 and center of bottom cooling plate 190; fig. 1 in Lubomirsky), a first area (defined as area in which buffer member 330 encloses; figs. 3-4) in which a buffer member (item 330; figs. 3-4) is fastened is formed in a cylindrical shaft (ceramic shaft at first area, i.e. area in which buffer member 330 encloses is cylindrical; fig. 4), and a second area (designated in second annotated fig. 4 below) that is above the top cooling plate is formed in a polygonal column shape (second area of ceramic shaft is polygonal, i.e. distinct edges and shapes; not cylindrical; designated in second annotated fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
479
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Second Annotated Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 4, KR’294 as modified discloses the lifting device as claimed in claim 3, further comprising:
a bracket (designated in second annotated fig. 4 above) attached to the top of the top cooling plate (via intermediate components) and formed to contact the surface of the ceramic shaft in the polygonal column shape (bracket contacts bottom surface of ceramic shaft in which polygonal shape is defined; second annotated fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 6, KR’294 as modified discloses the lifting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein a cross roller hinge (item 840; figs. 5b, 6a, and 7a-7b) is attached to a bottom of the level regulator (cross roller hinge 840 is attached to a bottom end of level regulator 800; figs. 5b, 6a, and 7a-7b).
Regarding claim 7, KR’294 as modified discloses the lifting device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a reinforcement member (designated in first annotated fig. 4 above) configured to connect the pair of side plates (reinforcement member is capable of connecting the side plates 500; figs. 3-4).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR2024/0003924 (KR’924), as provided in IDS filed on 10/30/2024 and translation provided by the Examiner, in view of Lubomirsky (US 2013/0284374), as evidenced by Rao ( US 2016/0083840).
Regarding claim 5, KR’294 as modified discloses the lifting device as claimed in claim 1. Though KR’293 discloses a plate (designated in second annotated fig. 3 below) attached to a partial top area (defined as outer edge top area of top plate 310), KR’294 does not explicitly disclose the details of the plate, such as wherein the plate is graphite plate.
PNG
media_image5.png
367
420
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Second Annotated Fig. 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plate to be composed of graphite since it had been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. As an example, Rao (US 2016/0083840) teaches a susceptor used in semiconductor processing, wherein a plate disposed in contact with the substrate or near the substrate (analogous to structure in KR’294) is composed of graphite (pp. [0012] and [0018]; fig. 1) in order to assist with the thermal conductivity within the device (pp. [0019] in Rao) and provide temperature uniformity along the entire substrate surface (pp. [0003], [0012], and [0019] in Rao). Please note in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY D FULL whose telephone number is (571)272-6996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00a.m.-2:30p.m..
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571)272-8548. 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.
/SIDNEY D FULL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights