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
1. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 line 5 uses the phrase “an_other” with a space, and should be amended to “another” one word, no space for improved grammar.
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.
2. 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:
“coupling member” first introduced in claim 6 line 6. “coupling” is functional language, and “member” is a generic placeholder, and claim 6 lacks sufficient structure to perform said function. Structure is found in [0083] of Applicant’s Specification as either a shaft or resin and will be interpreted as such and equivalents.
3. 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 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.
4. Claims 13, and 15-16 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.
Regarding claims 13, and 15-16, Claim 13 recites the limitation "second shaft" in lines 4 and 6. This implicitly teaches of a “first shaft” of the apparatus, this claim limitation not existing in claim 11, nor of any claims that depend therefrom. It is unclear if a “first shaft” is a required structure of this apparatus, and is therefore indefinite. This “second shaft” is also repeated in claims 15 and 16 and they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
5. Claims 1-6, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirata (US 2008/0210383).
Regarding claim 1, Hirata teaches of a substrate processing device (Abstract) shown in Figure 2 as comprising a base part (first pressure shaft/member- 22; [0061]) configured to receive a load (it holds first block member- 12 which holds first wafer W1 as noted in [0120]-[0121]), an upper jig (first back plate unit- 12B; [0055]) provided with a heat source (first heater chip -12C; [0056]) a pressure application plate (first pressure plate unit- 12A; [0054]) attached to the upper jig plate as seen in Figure 2 and configured to apply pressure to a workpiece (first and second wafers- W1 and W2; [0123]) and a supporting part (first flexible members or first support pillar members- 20) interposed between the base part and the upper jig plate and support the upper jig plate with respect to the base part having a supporting body (individual first flexible members) comprising a ceramic based material (silicon nitride; [0089]) and an air layer around the surrounding body (first space- M1; [0100]).
Regarding claim 2, as noted in the rejection of claim 1, Hirata teaches the supporting body comprises a ceramic material (silicon nitride; [0089]).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, as seen in Figures 2 and 4, the supporting bodies have a cylindrical shape (relevant to claim 4), which is a form of a columnar shape (relevant to claim 3).
Regarding claim 5, Hirata teaches a plurality of supporting bodies in a matrix (three support pillars circumferentially equiangularly spaced; [0089]; see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 6, as seen in Figure 2, the first supporting bodies (first support pillar members- 20) are disposed at the base part (first pressure member- 22) and is coupled to the upper jig plate (first back plate unit- 12B) using a coupling member (raised portion- 13; [0089]).
Regarding claim 10, as seen in Figure 2, the first supporting bodies (first support pillar members- 20) are disposed at the base part (first pressure member- 22) and a holder (first raised portion- 13) is fixed to the first supporting body ([0089]). As seen in Figure 3, the area of the holder is greater than that of the supporting bodies, and therefore is both disposed along an outer circumference of the first supporting body, and surrounds the first supporting body.
Regarding claim 11, Hirata teaches of a substrate processing device (Abstract) shown in Figure 2 as comprising a base part (first pressure shaft/member- 22; [0061]) configured to receive a load (it holds first block member- 12 which holds first wafer W1 as noted in [0120]-[0121]), an upper jig (first back plate unit- 12B; [0055]) provided with a heat source (first heater chip -12C; [0056]) a pressure application plate (first pressure plate unit- 12A; [0054]) attached to the upper jig plate as seen in Figure 2 and configured to apply pressure to a workpiece (first and second wafers- W1 and W2; [0123]) and a supporting part (first flexible members or first support pillar members- 20) interposed between the base part and the upper jig plate and support the upper jig plate with respect to the base part having a ([0089]). Hirata further teaches of a holding part (first hollow member- 24 and O-ring- 26) that displaceably holds the upper jig plate with respect to the base part (the elasticity adapts to thermal expansion displacement; [0134]).
6. Claims 11-12, 14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakaki (JP 2004-119594; PDF included with Office Action). While Hirata also anticipates claim 11, the rejection of claims 12, 14, and 18-19 require an anticipation rejection of claim 11 with Sakaki.
Regarding claim 11, Sakaki teaches of a substrate processing device (pg.1 lines 16-18) shown in Figure 12 comprising a base part (pressure receiving member- 16), an upper jig plate (IC pressurizing member- 11) provided with a heat source (heating element- 28; pg. 12 lines 1-2), a pressure application plate (intermediate member- 14) that is attached to the upper jig plate and applies pressure to a workpiece (pg. 8 lines 11-14), a supporting part (heat insulting member- 29; pg. 12 lines 6-8), and a holding part (elastic member- 13). The holding part is displaceably holding the upper jig plate with respect to the base part (pg. 8 lines 24-27). The base part is seen in Figure 12 is holding the other claimed components, which can be interpreted as a load, and is therefore configured to receive a load. The supporting part is seen in Figure 12 as being interposed between the base part and the upper jig plate and supporting the upper jig plate with respect to the base part (shown in top-down stack order of pressure receiving member- 16, elastic member- 13, heat insulating member- 29, and IC pressurizing member-11; 29 is between 16 and 11).
Regarding claim 12, Sakaki teaches that their holding part is an elastic body (pg. 8 line 24). The upper jig plate is supported by the holding part, and if not being pressed into the IC chip, the elastic force of the elastic body would be lifting the upper jig plate.
Regarding claim 14, as a consequence of static equilibrium, if the upper jig plate is not being pressed into the IC chip, the weight of the upper jig plate and attached components (which is the object held by the holding part) would be equivalent or balanced with the elastic force of the elastic body.
Regarding claim 18, the supporting part of Sakaki’s apparatus is a thermally insulating material, with zirconia explicitly mentioned (heat insulting member- 29; pg. 12 lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 19, as seen in Figure 12, the thermally insulating material/supporting part (heat insulating member- 29) is interposed between the holding part (elastic member- 13) and the upper jig plate (IC pressing member- 11), and the holding part and the upper jig plate are not in contact with each other.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 7-9, 13, and 15-17 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.
Regarding claim 7, Hirata teaches that the supporting bodies (first support pillar members- 20) are hollow ([0091]), the hollow void could be interpreted as a “first shaft” and would consequentially be along an axial direction of the first supporting body. However, such an interpretation would prevent the possibility of the shaft being fixed to the first supporting shaft or coupled with either the base part or upper jig plate. Further, the purpose for the supporting bodies being hollow is for gas flow passage ([0091]) and therefore would be a teaching away from a shaft that is fixed. Consequentially, Hirata does not teach or render obvious of a first shaft and associated limitations as claimed in claim 7. Claim 7 still needs to be amended to overcome the Claim Objection noted above.
Regarding claim 9, Hirata does teach of a second supporting body (first hollow member- 24), however, Hirata does not teach or render obvious that the supporting body is disposed around the first supporting body, nor that the second supporting body is coupled to the base part but is in contact with the upper jig plate without being coupled to the upper jig plate.
Regarding claim 13, the supporting part (heat insulating member- 29) can be considered a main body holding the upper jig plate. The holding part is an elastic member that, when not pressing an IC chip, is biasing the main body to the base part (pg. 8 lines 24-27). Sakaki does not teach or render obvious the inclusion of a second shaft and associated limitations.
Regarding claim 17, Sakaki does not teach or a plurality of holding parts. Sakaki does not teach or render obvious that the plurality of holding parts holds a peripheral part of the upper jig plate.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER S WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30am-5:00 pm 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, Philip Tucker can be reached on 571-273-1095. 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.
/ALEXANDER S WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/ALEX B EFTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights