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 .
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure:
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), 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), 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. See MPEP § 2181.I. Such claim limitation is:
“airflow distribution unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“airflow distribution unit” is interpreted as requiring the structures of a fixing plate (having holes therein) plus a moving plate (having holes therein) that is movable relative to the fixing plate (see Spec. at ¶¶ [8], [24], [65], Figs. 3-10), and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim Objections
For Claim 12 line 1-2, it’s recommended that the language be amended as follows:
wherein when the substrate is treated with the first liquid, fumes are generated more than when the substrate is treated with the second liquid
For Claim 12 line 3-4, it’s recommended that the language be amended as follows:
when the substrate is treated with the second liquid, low humidity is required compared to when the substrate is treated with the first liquid
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 1-13 & 19-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the airflow distribution unit is provided to distribute the descending airflow….” at line 12-13. It’s unclear what’s meant by the term “provided” in this context. Does the term mean the airflow distribution unit is supplied or made available to distribute airflow? Or does the term mean the airflow distribution unit is configured to distribute airflow? Clarification is requested.
For examination purpose, it’s interpreted to mean that “the airflow distribution unit is configured to distribute the descending airflow...”
Claim 1 recites “in the first mode and the second mode, a flow of the descending airflow is provided differently from each other” at lines 14-15. First, it’s unclear how many flows are required by the phrase. Second, it’s unclear what is meant by “each other,” i.e., what object is different from what object? Third, the difference between “flow” and “airflow” is unclear. Clarification is requested.
For examination purpose, the above phrase is interpreted as follows: a flow of the descending airflow in the first mode is provided differently from a flow of the descending airflow in the second mode.
Claim 2 recites “the moving plate is provided to be movable between a first position and a second position” on pg. 2 line 5-6. It’s unclear what’s meant by the term “provided” in this context. Does the term mean the moving plate is supplied or made available to be movable? Or does the term mean the moving plate is configured to be movable?
For examination purpose, it’s interpreted to mean that “the moving plate is configured to be movable between a first position and a second position.”
Both Claims 3 and 4 recite “aperture ratio per unit area.” It’s unclear what this term means, as it’s not defined by the specification. What is an “aperture ratio,” especially in the context of a perforated plate used to distribute airflow? How is “aperture ratio” determined for one of the holes in said perforated plate? And how is “aperture ratio per unit area” determined for one of the holes in said perforated plate? Clarification is requested.
Claim 3 recites “the first hole” at line 1. Because claim 2 recites “a plurality of first holes,” it’s unclear which specific hole is “the” first hole. Clarification is requested.
Claim 3 recites “the second hole” at line 2. Because claim 2 recites “a plurality of second holes,” it’s unclear which specific hole is “the” second hole. Clarification is requested.
Claim 4 recites “the first hole” at line 1. Because claim 2 recites “a plurality of first holes,” it’s unclear which specific hole is “the” first hole. Clarification is requested.
Claim 4 recites “the second hole” at line 2. Because claim 2 recites “a plurality of second holes,” it’s unclear which specific hole is “the” second hole. Clarification is requested.
Claim 5 recites “the first hole” at line 1. Because claim 2 recites “a plurality of first holes,” it’s unclear which specific hole is “the” first hole. Clarification is requested.
Claim 5 recites “the second hole” at line 1. Because claim 2 recites “a plurality of second holes,” it’s unclear which specific hole is “the” second hole. Clarification is requested.
Claim 5 recites “the third hole” at line 1. Because claim 2 recites “a plurality of third holes,” it’s unclear which specific hole is “the” third hole. Clarification is requested.
Claim 6 recites “the first plate and the second plate are provided to be movable in directions facing each other or in directions opposite to each other” at lines 3-4. As explained above, the meaning of “provided” is unclear. Clarification is requested.
For examination purpose, it’s interpreted as follows: “the first plate and the second plate are configured to be movable….”
Claim 6 recites “the driver is provided to move the first plate and the second plate between the first position and the second position” at lines 5-6. As explained above, the meaning of “provided” is unclear. Clarification is requested.
For examination purpose, it’s interpreted as follows: “the driver is configured to move the first plate and the second plate….”
Claim 7 recites “wherein the first mode allows a flow of the descending airflow to be concentrated in the process space compared to the second mode.” As explained above, it’s unclear how many flows are required; the difference between “flow” and “airflow” is unclear. It’s also unclear whether “a flow of the descending airflow” recited in Claim 7 is the same as or different from “a flow of the descending airflow” recited in Claim 1. Clarification is requested.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the second mode more uniformly provides the flow of the airflow in the interior space than the first mode.” As explained above, it’s unclear how many flows are required; the difference between “flow” and “airflow” is unclear. It’s also unclear whether or not the “flow” recited in claim 8 is the same as or different from the “flow” recited in claim 7 and recited in claim 1. Clarification is requested.
Claim 9 recites “the third hole” and “the second hole.” It’s unclear which hole out of the plurality of third holes (recited in claim 2) is “the” third hole, and which hole out of the plurality of second holes (recited in claim 2) is “the” second hole. Clarification is requested.
Claim 10 recites “the third hole” and “the first hole.” It’s unclear which hole out of the plurality of third holes (recited in claim 2) is “the” third hole, and which hole out of the plurality of first holes (recited in claim 2) is “the” first hole. Clarification is requested.
In Claim 12, the term “low humidity” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low humidity” 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. In short, because the specification does not explain what is considered “low humidity” and what is not considered “low humidity,” the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 12 recites “low humidity” at line 3. Humidity of what substance? Humidity in where? This is unclear. Clarification is requested.
Claim 19 depends on Claim 18, which has been canceled, thereby rendering Claim 19 indefinite. Claim 19 recites terms—e.g., “moving plate,” “first region,” “second region,” “first hole,” “second hole,” and “third hole”—that first appear in Claim 2 (i.e., those terms do not appear in Claim 1). Therefore, for examination purpose, Claim 19 is interpreted to depend on Claim 2. Correction of Claim 19’s dependency is required.
Claim 19 recites “the third hole” and “the second hole” at lines 3-4. It’s unclear which hole out of the plurality of third holes (recited in claim 2) is “the” third hole, and which hole out of the plurality of second holes (recited in claim 2) is “the” second hole.
Claim 19 recites “the third hole” and “the first hole” on pg. 4 lines 3-4. It’s unclear which hole out of the plurality of third holes (recited in claim 2) is “the” third hole, and which hole out of the plurality of first holes (recited in claim 2) is “the” first hole.
Claim 20 recites “the substrate treatment” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on a claim rejected herein.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ITO et al. (US PGPUB 20180221925) in view of SASAKI (Japanese Publication JP2004212018A, as translated by Espacenet).
Regarding Claim 1, ITO teaches an apparatus of treating a substrate (see Fig. 2, ¶ 0034). ITO’s apparatus comprises:
a housing (chamber 20, see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0034-35) having an upper wall (ceiling, see Fig. 2, ¶ 0035) and providing an interior space (see Fig. 2);
a treatment container (one or more of guard 80, cup 50, cup 51) provided in the interior space (see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0055-56) and providing a process space with an open top (see Fig. 2, each guard/cup has an open top);
a support unit (substrate holding mechanism 30) for supporting a substrate (wafer W) within the process space (see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0034-36);
a liquid supply unit (fluid supply unit 40) for supplying a treatment liquid on the substrate supported by the support unit (see Fig. 2, ¶ 0045);
an exhaust unit (factory exhaust system, see ¶ 0044) for exhausting the process space (see Fig. 2, ¶ 0044);
a fan (fan filter unit or “FFU” 21 has a fan) for supplying descending airflow into the interior space (see Fig. 2, ¶ 0035); and
an airflow distribution unit (plate 21) that is disposed under the fan (see Fig. 2, ¶ 0035) and above the treatment container (see Fig. 2) and distributes the descending airflow to the interior space (see Fig. 2, ¶ 0035).
ITO does not explicitly teach “wherein the airflow distribution unit is provided to distribute the descending airflow in a mode selected from a first mode and a second mode, and in the first mode and the second mode, a flow of the descending airflow is provided differently from each other.”
SASAKI teaches an airflow distribution unit (two plates, see Figs. 2-30) for a substrate processing apparatus (see ¶¶ 0001-06), just like the present application. SASAKI teaches a fan filter unit 31 comprising a fan 36 and a filter 37 (see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0018-22), wherein the airflow distribution unit (two plates) is disposed under fan 36 of FFU 31 (see Fig. 2, ¶ 0022).
SASAKI teaches the airflow distribution unit comprising:
a fixing plate (a first ventilation plate such as: plate 42, Figs. 3-11, ¶ 0023; plate 61, Figs. 12-13, ¶ 0039; plate 66, Figs. 14-15, ¶ 0042; plate 71, Figs. 16-19, ¶ 0045; plate 81, Figs. 20-25, ¶ 0050; plate 91, Figs. 26-30, ¶ 0058), wherein the fixing plate has a plurality of holes (first through-holes such as holes 44, holes 62, holes 67, holes 72, holes 82, holes 92) penetrating in the vertical direction (see Figs. 2-30);
a moving plate (a second ventilation plate such as: plate 43, Figs. 3-11, ¶ 0023; plate 63, Figs. 12-13, ¶ 0039; plate 68, Figs. 14-15, ¶ 0042; plate 73, Figs. 16-19, ¶ 0045; plate 83, Figs. 20-25, ¶ 0051; plate 93, Figs. 26-30, ¶ 0058) stacked on the fixing plate (see Figs. 2-30), wherein the moving plate has a plurality of holes (second through-holes such as holes 47, holes 64, holes 69, holes 74, holes 84, holes 94) penetrating in the vertical direction (see Figs. 2-30).
SASAKI teaches that the moving plate (second ventilation plate) is movable between a first position and a second position (see Figs. 2-30, ¶¶ 0006-12). By moving the moving plate between different positions, it’s possible to change the areas of overlap between holes of the moving plate and holes of the fixing plate (see id.), thereby changing the distribution of descending airflow into different modes (see id.). In other words, SASAKI teaches that the airflow distribution unit—a fixing plate and a moving plate movable relative to the fixing plate— is provided to distribute the descending airflow in a mode selected from a first mode and a second mode, wherein in the first mode and the second mode, a flow of the descending airflow is provided differently from each other (see Figs. 2-30, ¶¶ 0006-12).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify ITO’s airflow distribution unit (plate 21) into a two-plate structure—e.g., incorporate a moving plate movable relative to ITO’s plate 21—with reasonable expectation of controlling airflow. First, given the benefits of controlling and customizing the distribution of descending airflow, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to modify ITO to incorporate a moving plate movable relative to ITO’s plate 21. Second, it’s already known in the prior art for a substrate processing apparatus to have an airflow distribution unit disposed under the fan (see ITO; see SASAKI), wherein the airflow distribution unit comprises a fixing plate and a moving plate movable relative to the fixing plate (see SASAKI). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination of ITO and SASAKI: the airflow distribution unit would comprise both a fixing plate (e.g., ITO’s plate 21) and a moving plate that’s movable relative to the fixing plate. Such two-plate configuration would allow the airflow distribution unit to “distribute the descending airflow in a mode selected from a first mode and a second mode, and in the first mode and the second mode, a flow of the descending airflow is provided differently from each other.”
Regarding claim 7, the combination of ITO and SASAKI teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The combination also teaches wherein the first mode (for example, airflow distribution area 53 in SASAKI’s Figs. 8-9; airflow distribution area 88 in SASAKI’s Figs. 24-25) allows a flow of the descending airflow to be concentrated in the process space compared to the second mode (for example, airflow distribution area 51 in SASAKI’s Figs. 4-5; airflow distribution area 86 in SASAKI’s Figs. 20-21).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of ITO and SASAKI teaches the apparatus of claim 7. The combination also teaches wherein the second mode (for example, airflow distribution area 51 in SASAKI’s Figs. 4-5; airflow distribution area 86 in SASAKI’s Figs. 20-21) more uniformly provides the flow of the airflow in the interior space than the first mode (for example, airflow distribution area 53 in SASAKI’s Figs. 8-9; airflow distribution area 88 in SASAKI’s Figs. 24-25).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 contains allowable subject matter. Claims 3-6 and 9-13 also contain allowable subject matter because they depend on Claim 2.
Claims 2-6 and 9-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejections 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 indicating allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not anticipate or suggest the subject matter of Claims 2-6 and 9-13, the dependent claims. The most relevant prior art references are ITO et al. (US PGPUB 20180221925) and SASAKI (Japanese Publication JP2004212018A).
ITO teaches a substrate processing apparatus (see Fig. 2) comprising: a housing (chamber 20); a treatment container (one or more of guard 80, cup 50, cup 51); a support unit (substrate holding mechanism 30); a liquid supply unit (fluid supply unit 40); an exhaust unit (factory exhaust system); a fan (FFU 21); and an airflow distribution unit (plate 21) under the fan and above the container.
SASAKI teaches an airflow distribution unit (a two-plate structure, see Figs. 2-30) comprising a fixing plate (first ventilation plate with reference number 42, 61, 66, 71, 81, or 91) and a moving plate (second ventilation plate with reference number 43, 63, 68, 73, 83, 93) stacked on the fixing plate; each plate having a plurality of holes penetrating in the vertical direction (see Figs. 2-30); wherein the moving plate is movable between a first position and a second position (see Figs. 2-30, ¶¶ 0006-08).
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a substrate processing apparatus with the specific combination of structural and functional limitations as recited in the claim, wherein such combination includes, inter alia:
the fixing plate has: a first region where a plurality of first holes penetrating in a vertical direction is formed; and a second region surrounding the first region and having a plurality of second holes penetrating in the vertical direction,
the moving plate includes a plurality of third holes penetrating in the vertical direction,
the moving plate is provided to be movable between a first position and a second position, and
when viewed from above, the first position is a position where the moving plate overlaps the first region, and the second position is a position where the moving plate is deviated from the first region.
Claims 3-6 and 9-13 depend on Claim 2, so those claims are allowable for the same reasons provided for Claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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, KAJ OLSEN can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights