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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by White et al. (US 8,206,075 B2).
Claim 1:
The recitation "the main body portion and the projection are formed as a single, one-piece forged component part" is a product-by-process limitation. As set forth in MPEP § 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP § 2113. The structure implied by the abovementioned steps is a single, one-piece main body portion and a projection component part.
White discloses a body, comprising: a main body portion including a first major surface, a second major surface opposite the first major surface, and multiple facets forming sidewalls extending between the first major surface and the second major surface (see annotated reproduction of fig. 3C, below);
a projection extending from the second major surface and in a direction away from the first major surface, wherein the main body portion and the projection are formed as a single, one-piece component part (see annotated reproduction of fig. 3C, below);
a first recess extending inward from the first major surface, the first recess including a bottom surface (see annotated reproduction of fig. 3C, below); and,
a through hole opening extending from the bottom surface of the first recess through the projection (see annotated reproduction of fig. 3C, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
1072
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1, 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi et al. (US 2024/0057464 A1) in view of White et al. (US 8,206,075 B2).
Claim 1:
The recitation "the main body portion and the projection are formed as a single, one-piece forged component part" is a product-by-process limitation. As set forth in MPEP § 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP § 2113. The structure implied by the abovementioned steps is a single, one-piece main body portion and a projection component part.
Eguchi discloses a body (¶83), comprising:
a main body portion (TF2) including a first major surface, a second major surface opposite the first major surface, and multiple facets (the individual straight perimeter segments forming the polygonal outline of TF2 in the top view) forming sidewalls extending between the first major surface and the second major surface (fig. 2, ¶83); Eguchi fails to disclose a projection extending from the second major surface and in a direction away from the first major surface.
White discloses a body, comprising a main body portion including a first major surface, a second major surface opposite the first major surface, and multiple facets forming sidewalls extending between the first major surface and the second major surface (see annotated reproduction of fig. 3C, above);
a projection extending from the second major surface and in a direction away from the first major surface, wherein the main body portion and the projection are formed as a single, one-piece component part (see annotated reproduction of fig. 3C, above);
a first recess extending inward from the first major surface, the first recess including a bottom surface (see annotated reproduction of fig. 3C, above); and a through hole opening extending from the bottom surface of the first recess through the projection (see annotated reproduction of fig. 3C, above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the substrate transfer chamber of Eguchi with a bottom structure configured according to White, including a frame having an integral projection portions, a recessed step, and an opening extending through the projection portion, to accommodate a separately installable bottom insert and to reduce or isolate pressure-induced movement of the chamber structure and associated sealing surfaces. See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Both Eguchi and White concern chambers for handling substrates under controlled-pressure conditions, and the modification would have involved applying White’s known chamber-bottom construction according to its established functions.
Claim 4:
Eguchi in view of White renders obvious the substrate handling chamber precursor according to claim 1, wherein the multiple facets forming the sidewalls of the main body portion (Eguchi, TF2) form a hexagonal shape (Eguchi, fig. 2, ¶83).
Claim 5:
Eguchi in view of White renders obvious the substrate handling chamber precursor according to claim 4, wherein the multiple facets include: (a) a first facet, (b) a second facet extending from the first facet at a first angle, (c) a third facet extending from the first facet at a second angle, (d) a fourth facet extending from the second facet at a third angle, (e) a fifth facet extending from the third facet at a fourth angle, and (f) a sixth facet extending between the fourth facet and the fifth facet (Eguchi, fig. 2, ¶83). (The recited claim language essentially describes the mathematical relationship of the perimeter topology of a six-sided polygon).
Claim 6:
Eguchi in view of White renders obvious the substrate handling chamber precursor according to claim 5, wherein the second angle is substantially equal to the first angle and the third angle is substantially equal to the fourth angle (Eguchi, fig. 2, ¶83). (Eguchi depicts the six-facet transfer chamber as a regular or substantially symmetric hexagonal structure. Therefore, the corresponding angles defined between the first facet and the respective second and third facets are substantially equal, and the corresponding angles defined between the second and fourth facets and between the third and fifth facets are substantially equal.)
Claim 8:
Eguchi in view of White renders obvious the substrate handling chamber precursor according to claim 6, wherein the sixth facet extends from the fourth facet at a fifth angle, wherein the sixth facet extends from the fifth facet at a sixth angle, and wherein the fifth angle is substantially equal to the sixth angle (Eguchi, fig. 2, ¶83). (Eguchi depicts the six-facet transfer chamber as a regular or substantially symmetric hexagonal structure. Therefore, the corresponding angles defined between the sixth facet and the respective fourth and fifth facets are substantially equal.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-16 are allowed.
Claims 2-3, 7 and 9-11 are object 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest the substrate handling chamber precursor according to claim 1, wherein the projection comprises a round cylindrical structure extending from the second major surface.
Claim 3:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest the substrate handling chamber precursor according to claim 1, wherein the first recess defines a circular perimeter having a first diameter and the through hole opening defines a circular perimeter having a second diameter, and wherein the second diameter is less than one half the first diameter.
Claims 7, 9 and 12:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest a substrate handling chamber precursor comprising a hexagonal main body portion, wherein an angle formed between two facets of the hexagonal main body portion is at least 30 degrees larger than a second angle between two facets of the hexagonal main body portion as specifically recited by the claims.
Claims 10 and 12:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest a substrate handling chamber precursor comprising a hexagonal main body portion, wherein at least two facets are wider than at least four of the other facets of the hexagonal main body portion as specifically recited by the claims.
Claim 11:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest the substrate handling chamber precursor according to claim 5, wherein each of the first facet, the second facet, the third facet, and the sixth facet is at least 1.3 times wider than each of the fourth facet and the fifth facet.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kurita et al. (US 7,018,517 B2) discloses a transfer chamber for a substrate processing tool.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights