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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 03/26/2025 is acknowledged by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the damper” in line 6 “the plate-shaped damper”. 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: “air volume adjustment mechanism” in claim 1.
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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taniguchi et al. (JP 2010087116).
Taniguchi et al. disclose:
1. A filter apparatus (41) for a substrate treatment apparatus (129), the filter apparatus having a filter (94, 95, 99) installed above a plurality of substrate treatment apparatuses (27, 27, 27) arranged in a row (see fig. 11a, 11b), the filter apparatus comprising: an air inlet (at 46) formed on one end portion side in a row direction of the substrate treatment apparatuses in a duct space (91) formed above the filter (as seen in figs. 11a, 11b); and an air volume adjustment mechanism (“flow rate adjustment plate” 93 having holes 96, and “air flow adjusting member” 97 above 93) configured to variably adjust a volume of air flowing from a first space on the air inlet side in the duct space into a second space adjacent to the first space in the row direction ([0148] states “The height of the airflow adjusting member 97 in the Z direction is preferably set to 20% to 30% of the height of the internal space of the air circulation portion 91 in the Z direction;” which would thus provide variable adjustment of the air flow that flows across them separating a first and second space along 91), the air volume adjustment mechanism being provided at a position between apparatuses in the plurality of substrate treatment apparatuses in plan view (any one 97 above 93 is positioned between the left and right substrate treatment apparatuses).
10. A clean air supply method to a substrate treatment apparatus using a filter apparatus (41) having a filter (94, 95, 99) installed above a plurality of substrate treatment apparatuses (27, 27, 27) arranged in a row (see figs. 11a, 11b), the filter apparatus comprising: an air inlet (at 46) formed on one end portion side in a row direction of the substrate treatment apparatuses in a duct space (91) formed above the filter (as seen in figs. 11a, 11b); and an air volume adjustment mechanism (“flow rate adjustment plate” 93 having holes 96, and “air flow adjusting member” 97 above 93) configured to variably adjust a volume of air flowing from a first space on the air inlet side in the duct space into a second space adjacent to the first space in the row direction ([0148] states “The height of the airflow adjusting member 97 in the Z direction is preferably set to 20% to 30% of the height of the internal space of the air circulation portion 91 in the Z direction;” which would thus provide variable adjustment of the air flow that flows across them separating a first and second space along 91), the air volume adjustment mechanism being provided at a position between apparatuses in the plurality of substrate treatment apparatuses in plan view (any one 97 above 93 is positioned between the left and right substrate treatment apparatuses), the method comprising supplying air flowing into the first space to the substrate treatment apparatus adjacent to the air inlet side of the air volume adjustment mechanism in plan view ([0141] states “air that has flowed into the air circulation portion 91 from the circulation pipe 51”), and supplying air adjusted in inflow volume by the air volume adjustment mechanism and flowing into the second space to the substrate treatment apparatus adjacent to a side of the air volume adjustment mechanism opposite to the air inlet in plan view ([0150] states “the air flow rate adjustment member 97 can sufficiently stabilize the flow rate of the air in the air circulation portion 91” which indicates air flow flows across 97; 97 spans the width of 91 and therefore separates the space into a first space and a second space, one being opposite from the inlet in plan view).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR 10088758, KR 101985764, and JP 2021044455 each disclose related filter apparatuses that include flow adjustment mechanisms in a duct space above substrate treatment apparatuses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARINA TIETJEN, whose telephone number is 571-270-5422. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:30AM-7:00PM CST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Tom Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746, Ken Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, and Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARINA A TIETJEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights