DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 07 November 2025.. Claims 1, 8-10, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18 are pending in the application. Claims 2-7, 11, 14, 17, and 19 have been cancelled. Claims 16 and 18 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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 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.
Claims 8, 9, 10, and 13 are again rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over . Nishinakayama et al., WO 00/24551, of record.
Nishinakayama et al. disclose a substrate processing apparatus, shown in Figs. 1-4. comprising:
at least one process chamber 12A-12D configured to heat substrates W (“ Each of the chambers 12A to 12D performs the same or different heat treatment on the wafer W.“),
a cooling chamber 38 configured to cool the substrates W heated in the at least one process chamber 12A-12D; and
a transfer machine 16/20 configured to transfer the substrates W, as shown in Fig. 1, and includes at least one high temperature substrate transfer arm 46 configured to transfer high-temperature substrates W and at least one low temperature substrate transfer arm 50 configured to transfer low-temperature substrates (from cassette containers 26A-26D), wherein a mapping sensor 52 is installed in the at least one low temperature substrate transfer arm 50, as shown in Figs. 2-4, and
wherein a number of the substrates loaded into each of the at least one process chamber 12A by using the transfer machine 16/20 is larger than a number of the substrates loaded into the cooling chamber 36 by using the transfer machine 16/20. A first wafer is loaded into process chamber 12A. After heat treatment of the first wafer, the first wafer would be transferred to cooling chamber 36, then a second wafer would be transferred into the process chamber 12A. Hence, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that a number of the substrates loaded into each of the at least one process chamber 12A would be larger than a number of the substrates loaded into the cooling chamber 36 by using the transfer machine 16/20.
With respect to claim 8, in the substrate processing apparatus of Nishinakayama et al., the at least one process chamber 12A-12D includes at least two process chambers and wherein the cooling chamber is installed between the process chambers, as shown in Fig. 1.
With respect to claim 9, the substrate processing apparatus of Nishinakayama et al. further comprises: a transfer chamber 8 in which the transfer machine 16/20 is installed and a controller 72 configured to perform a control such that an internal pressure of the transfer chamber 8 is higher than an internal pressure of the cooling chamber (“a control unit for controlling the overall operation”). Both the transfer chamber 8 and the cooling chamber 38 are evacuated. The pressure of the chambers would be an obvious processing parameter to optimize and ascertainable through routine experimentation, since the pressure of the transfer chamber 8 can either be higher, lower or equal to the pressure of the cooling chamber 38. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to choose from these 3 identified and predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. It has been well established that an obvious to try rationale can support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious if a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) In this case it would have been obvious to perform a control such that an internal pressure of the transfer chamber 8 is higher than an internal pressure of the cooling chamber 38 in order to prevent contamination of the heat-treated substrates..
With respect to claim 10, although Nishinakayama et al. disclose that the transfer chamber 8 and the cooling chamber 38 can be pressurized, Nishinakayama et al. lack anticipation of the controller being further configured to perform a control such that a pressure difference between the transfer chamber 8 and the cooling chamber 38 is 10 Pa. However, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to optimize the pressure difference between the transfer chamber 8 and the cooling chamber 38 and clearly ascertainable through routine experimentation. Therefore, this limitation is not deemed to patentably distinguish Applicant’s claimed substrate processing apparatus from the known apparatus of Nishinakayama et al.
With respect to claim 13, although Nishinakayama et al. disclose that the transfer machine 16/20 includes at least one high temperature substrate transfer arm 46 configured to transfer a high- temperature substrate W and at least one low temperature substrate transfer arm 50 configured to transfer a low-temperature substrate W (from cassette containers 26A-26D), as shown in Fig. 1, Nishinakayama et al. lack anticipation of the at least one high-temperature substrate transfer arm 46 being made of a material having high heat resistance and low heat conductivity. However, it would have been within the purview of the skilled artisan to choose such a material for the high-temperature transfer arm 46 in order to prevent any further heating of the substrate W during the transfer process.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishinakayama et al., as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kawabe et al., US 2015/0255257, of record.
Nishinakayama et al. is applied as above. However, Nishinakayama et al., lacks anticipation of a gas supply pipe configured to supply a cooling gas and an exhauster configured to exhaust the cooling gas installed in the cooling chamber 38 (load-lock chambers). However, in a similar substrate processing apparatus, Kawabe et al. disclose a cooling load-lock chamber 13, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2, which includes a gas supply pipe 26 configured to supply a cooling gas and an exhauster 24 configured to exhaust the cooling gas are installed in the cooling chamber 13, as shown in Fig. 2. In light of the similarities between these two apparatuses which are substrate processing apparatuses, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to include a gas supply pipe configured to supply a cooling gas and an exhauster configured to exhaust the cooling gas installed in the load-lock cooling chamber 38 in the known apparatus of Nishinakayama et al. to efficiently cool the substrate W.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishinakayama et al., as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Tanaka et al., US 2005/0189070, of record.
Nishinakayama et al. is applied as above. Nishinakayama et al. disclose that the processing system 4 can perform various processes such as etching on a transferred substrate W. However, Nishinakayama et al. fail to teach or suggest that the processing apparatus 4 comprises a microwave oscillator configured to provide microwaves into the at least one process chamber. However, Tanaka et al. teach that a plasma processing apparatus can be equipped with a plasma generating mechanism for supplying electromagnetic energy such as microwaves and RF waves to the processing chamber so as to generate plasma from the etching gas supplied to the processing chamber, see paragraph [0004]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that the processing apparatus 4 of Nishinakayama et al. could comprise a microwave oscillator configured to provide microwaves into the at least one process chamber in the known substrate processing apparatus of Nishinakayama et al. in order to plasma etch the substrate W.
Examiner’s Comments
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus " if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Purpose to which an apparatus is to be put and expressions relating the apparatus to its contents thereof during the intended operation are not significant in determining patentability of an apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault 164 USPQ 666(PTO Board of Appeals 1969). Inclusion of the material worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Otto et al. 136 USPQ 456 (CCPA 1963)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 1 has been amended to require “a number of the substrates loaded into each of the at least one process chamber by using the transfer machine is larger than a number of the substrates loaded into the cooling chamber by using the transfer machine”. The present claims are drawn to a substrate processing apparatus. It has been well established that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate a claimed apparatus from the prior art. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, in the substrate processing apparatus of Nishinakayama et al., a number of the substrates loaded into each of the at least one process chamber by using the transfer machine is larger than a number of the substrates loaded into the cooling chamber by using the transfer machine. For example, a first wafer is loaded into process chamber 12A. After heat treatment of the first wafer, the first wafer is then transferred to cooling chamber 36, then a second wafer is transferred into the process chamber 12A. Accordingly, the number of substrates loaded into the processing chamber 12A is two, while the number of substrates loaded into the cooling chamber 36 is one. Hence, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that a number of the substrates loaded into each of the at least one process chamber 12A would be larger than a number of the substrates loaded into the cooling chamber 36 by using the transfer machine 16/20. This limitation clearly does not patentably distinguish Applicant’s claimed substrate processing apparatus from the known apparatus of Nishinakayama et al.
Applicant has further argued that the substrate processing system of Nishinakayama et al. is “understood to be a single-wafer-type processing system that transfers and processes a single wafer one at a time. However, it has been well established that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate a claimed apparatus from the prior art. In the instant application, the substrate processing apparatus of Nishinakayama et al. is structurally the same as Applicant’s claimed substrate processing apparatus. Therefore, reciting in independent claim 1 that a number of the substrates loaded into each of the at least one process chamber by using the transfer machine is larger than a number of the substrates loaded into the cooling chamber by using the transfer machine is not deemed to patentably distinguish Applicant’s claimed substrate processing apparatus from that of Nishinakayama et al. In addition, intended use of an apparatus has been held not to be germane to determining the patentability of a claimed apparatus. The purpose to which an apparatus is to be put and an expression relating the contents thereof during the intended operation are not significant in determining the patentability of an apparatus claim A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of that claimed.
Applicant’s request for rejoinder of withdrawn claims 16 and 18 is acknowledged. However, there is no allowable apparatus claim in the instant application. Therefore, withdrawn claims 16 and 18 cannot be rejoined at this time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additionally cited reference is Applicant’s own art..
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY A WILCZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1849. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
MARY A. WILCZEWSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2898
/MARY A WILCZEWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898