DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on January 12, 2026, has been entered.
Claims 1, 11, and 21 are amended.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but the new grounds of rejection render them moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1 and its dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed had possession of the claimed invention. With regard to claim 1, Applicant has substituted the previous language of “two transfer arms” for “at least one transfer arm…to extend and retract the substrate holding independent of rotation of the base arm link.” Firstly, the examiner notes that Applicant elected the transfer robot of Figure 2D in response to the restriction requirement of May 13, 2020. Unlike the embodiment of, say, Figure 2F, this configuration comprises only two transfer arms (214, 214’). Because the syntax of “at least one” necessarily contemplates more than two transfer arms, this language constitutes new matter.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. This claim recites “two or more transfer arms.” As noted directly above, Applicant has already elected a robot embodiment consisting of two arms. Thus, syntax contemplating a quantity of transfer arms exceeding two constitute new matter.
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.
Claim 1 and its dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The second paragraph of claim 1 refers to “the at least one lateral side wall,” but this language lacks antecedent basis. The claim has not previously invoked an “at least one lateral side wall” but, instead, uses the diction of “two lateral side walls.” Correction is required. The examiner suggests: wherein at least one lateral side wall has at least two substrate transport ports… To expedite prosecution, the examiner will interpret the contested limitation as if the suggested change has already been rendered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto, JP 2008-103755, in view of Caveney et al., US 2003/0223853.
Claims 1, 3: Hashimoto discloses a substrate processing apparatus, comprising:
A linearly elongated transport chamber (28) having two opposing ends and two lateral side walls longer than the ends (Fig. 1);
Wherein a transport chamber centerline extends between the two opposing ends;
Wherein at least one lateral side wall has at least two substrate transport ports (108) arranged side by side;
A drive section (43) connected to the transport chamber at a location that is offset from the transport chamber centerline (Fig. 1);
A substrate transport apparatus (27) mounted inside the transport chamber, including:
A base arm link (41a) coupled to the drive section (43) and having a fixed axis of rotation (A0) disposed at one end thereof;
A transfer arm including two arm links (41b, 41c) and a substrate holder (40) on a distal link of the two arm links (Fig. 3);
Wherein the two arm links (41b, 41c) are rotatably coupled to each other so as to rotate with respect to each other;
Wherein the transfer arm is pivotally mounted to another end of the base arm link (41a) at another axis of rotation (A1);
Wherein the transfer arm is coupled independently to and rotated independently relative to the base arm link by respective independent drives, i.e. the “second motor” and “first motor” (p. 12, para. 2).
The first and second images of Figure 4 depict the straight-line movement of the substrate holder along a “substantially straight line path” into a transport port while maintaining the base arm link (41a) in a “predetermined orientation.”
Lastly, it is unclear if the first and second motors constituting the claims drive axes are situated within Hashimoto’s drive section, as required by claim 1. In supplementation, Caveney discloses an analogous substrate transport apparatus comprising a base arm link (240) and a transfer arm (242), with the former being coupled to a coaxial drive section (234) (Fig. 5). Within the drive section are motors (262, 264) which induce the independent extension and retraction of the base arm link and the transfer arm, thereby establishing the suitability of this design for purposes of transfer operations [0031]. It would have been obvious to situate Hashimoto’s drive motors within a drive section because using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 4: Caveney provides a z-axis drive to move the transport apparatus vertically but is silent regarding its location [0037]. Even so, it would have been obvious to integrate the z-axis drive, along with the other drives, within the drive shaft, as it has been held that rearranging the parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
Claims 5-6: Hashimoto is silent regarding the type of workpiece the transport apparatus is configured to handle, but engineering a substrate holder to accommodate the wafer-type which is intended to be processed is a design choice that would have been obvious to the skilled artisan.
Claim 7: As delineated by Figure 1 of Hashimoto, the base arm link (41a) is unarticulated.
Claims 8, 21: Caveney discloses an embodiment comprising two transfer arms (242, 244) that are independently rotatable ([0035]; Fig. 2).
Claim 9: As shown by Figure 1, the transfer port (108) is spaced a distance from the transport apparatus’ axis of rotation.
Claim 10: The operator can simply position Hashimoto’s base arm link between the claimed first and second paths – it has been held that a recitation drawn to the intended manner of employing a claimed apparatus does not differentiate said apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto in view of Caveney, and in further view of Seol, US 2008/0008569.
An atmospheric front-end constitutes Hashimoto’s transport chamber; as such, the chamber lacks side by side transport ports disposed on at least one of the two opposing ends. However, alternative chamber configurations are known. For example, Seol situates a transfer robot (15) with a vacuum transfer chamber (130) having elongated lateral sides and opposing ends (Fig. 1). As shown, side by side transfer stations couple to both the sides and ends, thereby evidencing the viability of this construction. It would have been obvious to situate Hashimoto’s robot within an elongated transfer chamber having dual ports on all sides, since the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Gilchrist, US 6,737,826. Gilchrist teaches a transport chamber (13) comprising a transport apparatus (42) including a base arm link (72), and two transfer arms (62, 66), which can be moved independently of said base arm link (5, 39ff).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716