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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on February 5, 2026 was received and has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5, 9-10, and 21-23 were amended. Claims 2, 13, and 18-19 were previously cancelled. Claims 17 and 20 were withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-12, 14-16, and 21-23 are in the application and pending examination.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The previous objection to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for not showing the following features of the invention specified in the claims:
“two or more transfer vias, each transfer via including a first arm coupled to a facet of the link chamber, a second arm connectable to a transfer module of a processing tool” in claim 1 or
“ a staging position located at an intersection of the first arm and the second arm, wherein the first arm and the second arm are angled at a non-normal angle relative” in claim 1 or “first transfer via and a second transfer via, each transfer via including a first arm coupled the link chamber, and a second arm ” in claim 1 or
“ a staging position located at an intersection of the first arm and the second arm, wherein the first arm and the second arm are angled at a non-normal angle relative” in claim 9;
“four facets” in claims 1 and 9
is withdrawn based on the amendments to claims 1 and 9.
The previous limitations in the previous objection were referenced to occurring in the incorrect claim the correct claim listing is included below :“first transfer via and a second transfer via, each transfer via including a first arm coupled the link chamber, and a second arm ” in claim [[15]] 1 or
“ a staging position located at an intersection of the first arm and the second arm, wherein the first arm and the second arm are angled at a non-normal angle relative” in claim [[15]] 9.
Specification
The previous objection to the specification as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter is withdrawn based on the amendment to the claims. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
The previous limitations in the previous objection were referenced to occurring in the incorrect claim the correct claim listing is included below :“first transfer via and a second transfer via, each transfer via including a first arm coupled the link chamber, and a second arm ” in claim [[15]] 1 or
“ a staging position located at an intersection of the first arm and the second arm, wherein the first arm and the second arm are angled at a non-normal angle relative” in claim [[15]] 9.
Claim Objections
The previous objections to claims 1 and 9 because of the following informalities:
“a link robot disposed in the link chamber operable to transfer one or more substrates from the transfer vias connectable to the transfer modules of the processing tools and any other chamber or transfer via connectable to any of the at least five facets”.
is withdrawn based on the amendment to claims 1 and 9.
The following objection to the limitation in claims 9 and 21 for being awkward is withdrawn based on the amendments to claims 9 and 21.
Line 5 of claim 1 recites : “ interface of the transfer via and a facet of the link chamber”. A suggested revision is as follows: : “ interface of each [[the]] transfer via and a facet of the at least four facets of the link chamber”.
Third paragraph of claim 1 recites : “ is the same” . A suggested revision is as follows: : “ is a same angle”.
Fifth paragraph of claim 1 recites : “ the transfer vias connectable to the transfer modules of the processing tools” . A suggested revision is as follows: : “ the first transfer via and the second transfer via are connectable to the first transfer module of the first processing tool and the second transfer module of the second processing tool”
Line 5 of claim 1 recites : “ interface of the transfer via and a facet of the link chamber”. A suggested revision is as follows: : “ interface of each [[the]] transfer via and a facet of the at least four facets of the link chamber”.
Line 13 of claim 9 recites : “ is the same”. A suggested revision is as follows: “ is a same angle”.
Claim 10 recites : “valves”. A suggested revision is as follows: “ additional valves”.
Claim 11 recites : “first transfer vias”. A suggested revision is as follows: “first transfer via”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of claims 1-12, 14-16, and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention is withdrawn based on the amendments to claims 1 and 9.
Claim 1 has been amended and no longer recites: “two or more transfer vias, each transfer via including a first arm coupled to a facet of the link chamber, a second arm connectable to a transfer module of a processing tool”.
Claim 1 has been amended and no longer recites:
“ a staging position located at an intersection of the first arm and the second arm, wherein the first arm and the second arm are angled at a non-normal angle relative”.
Claim 1 has been amended and no longer recites:
“two or more transfer vias, each transfer via including a first arm coupled to a facet of the link chamber, a second arm connectable to a transfer module of a processing tool”. This limitation appears unsupported by the specification as-filed. The word “arm” does not appear in the specification as-filed. The limitations “coupled to a facet” and “connectable to a transfer module” does not appear in the specification as-filed.
Claim 1 has been amended and no longer recites:
“first transfer via and a second transfer via, each transfer via including a first arm coupled the link chamber, and a second arm ” .
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.
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: “substrate alignment device” in claim12.
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 § 103
The previous rejection of claims 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 1 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20020020344 A1 to Satoshi Takano (hereinafter Takano) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Jeng teaches a system, comprising: a link chamber (57) having at least four facets;
two or more transfer vias ( via on left extending from lower opening of 59 to the upper portion of 57; via on right extending from lower opening of 58 to the upper portion of 57 in Fig. 6). (See Jeng, Abstract, Fig. 6, col. 6, lines 29-46.)
Regarding claim 1, Jeng does not explicitly teach a link robot disposed in the link chamber operable to transfer one or more substrates from the transfer vias connectable to the transfer modules of the processing tools and any other chamber or any other transfer via which are connectable to any of the other facets.
Wang is directed to use of robots in a substrate processing apparatus.
Wang teaches multiple robots (148, 146) disposed in a chamber (137) operable to transfer one or more substrates from the transfer vias (126, 124) connectable to the transfer modules ( 120, 122, 176, 176 ) of the processing tools (104-110) and any other chamber or any other transfer via which are connectable to any of the other facets. (See Wang, Abstract, Figs. 1, 6-7, paragraphs 4-7, 9-12, 30, 31, 33, 35-38, 40, 42-45, and 47.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention include a link robot disposed in the link chamber operable to transfer one or more substrates from the transfer vias connectable to the transfer modules of the processing tools and any other chamber or any other transfer via which are connectable to any of the other facets, because Wang teaches this structure is useful for transporting wafers from one location to a second location. (See Wang, Abstract, Figs. 1, 6-7, paragraphs 4-7, 9-12, 30, 31, 33, 35-38, 40, 42-45, and 47.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 1, Jeng does not explicitly teach each transfer via angled at a first angle relative to the center of the staging position, the first angle between 90 degrees and 180 degrees, wherein the first angle of at least the first transfer via and the second transfer via is the same.
Englehardt teaches vias (114a-c) allow substrates to be transported between processing tools 102a, 102b, and 104. (See Englehardt, Abstract, paragraphs 35, 41, 44-45, and 68-69.)
Englehardt teaches each transfer via is angled at a first angle relative to the center of the staging position, the first angle between 90 degrees and 180 degrees, wherein the first angle of at least the first transfer via and the second transfer via is the same.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have each transfer via is angled at a first angle relative to the center of the staging position, the first angle between 90 degrees and 180 degrees, wherein the first angle of at least the first transfer via and the second transfer via is the same, because Englehardt teaches this structure allows substrates to be processed between processing tools. (See Englehardt, Abstract, paragraphs 35, 41, 44-45, and 68-69.)
Regarding claim 1, Jeng does not explicitly teach a first valve disposed at an interface of the transfer via and a facet of the link chamber, a second valve opposite the first valve, wherein the second valve of the first transfer via is configured to be disposed at an interface of the first transfer via and a first transfer module of a first processing tool, and wherein the second valve of the second transfer via is configured to be disposed at an interface of the second transfer via and a second transfer module of a second processing tool.
Takano teaches the transfer environment of a substrate is adjusted to prevent contamination of the substrate surface by impurities. (See Takano, Abstract, Fig. 6, paragraphs 31, 61-62, and 66.)
Takano teaches a first valve (40) disposed at an interface of the transfer via (10) and a facet of the link chamber (20), a second valve opposite the first valve, wherein the second valve (45) of the first transfer via (10) is configured to be disposed at an interface of the first transfer via and a first transfer module (20) of a first processing tool, and wherein the second valve (70) of the second transfer via is configured to be disposed at an interface of the second transfer via and a second transfer module of a second processing tool. (See Takano, Abstract, Fig. 6, paragraphs 31, 61-62, and 66.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have a first valve disposed at an interface of the transfer via and a facet of the link chamber, a second valve opposite the first valve, wherein the second valve of the first transfer via is configured to be disposed at an interface of the first transfer via and a first transfer module of a first processing tool, and wherein the second valve of the second transfer via is configured to be disposed at an interface of the second transfer via and a second transfer module of a second processing tool, because Takano teaches the transfer environment of a substrate is adjusted to prevent contamination of the substrate surface by impurities. (See Takano, Abstract, Fig. 6, paragraphs 31, 61-62, and 66.)
Regarding claim 1, Jeng does not explicitly teach a staging position located therein, between the first valve and the second valve, wherein each transfer via is angled at a first angle relative to the center of the staging position, the first angle between 90 degrees and 180 degrees, wherein the first angle of at least the first transfer via and the transfer via is the same.
Englehardt teaches a staging position located therein of each transfer via, wherein each transfer via is angled at a first angle relative to the center of the staging position, the first angle between 90 degrees and 180 degrees, wherein the first angle of at least the first transfer via and the transfer via is the same. (See Englehardt, Abstract, Fig. 6, paragraphs 12-14, 35, 39-41, 44, 47-49, and 68-69.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have a staging position located therein of each transfer via, wherein each transfer via is angled at a first angle relative to the center of the staging position, the first angle between 90 degrees and 180 degrees, wherein the first angle of at least the first transfer via and the transfer via is the same, because Englehardt teaches this would allow substrates to be transported under vacuum to various chamber locations. (See Englehardt, Abstract, Fig. 6, paragraphs 9, 12-14, 29, 34-35, 39-41, 44, 47-49, 68-69, and 71.)
Regarding claim 22, Jeng teaches the link robot is operable to transfer one or more substrates directly from the first transfer module (56 on left) connected to a second transfer module (56 on right). (See Jeng, Abstract, Fig. 6, col. 6, lines 29-46.)
The previous rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190148177 A1 to Yin et al (hereinafter Yin) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20020020344 A1 to Satoshi Takano (hereinafter Takano) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190148177 A1 to Yin et al (hereinafter Yin).
Regarding claim 6, Jeng does not explicitly teach two auxiliary chambers.
Yin teaches two auxiliary chambers. (See Yin, Abstract, Fig. 16, paragraph 68.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention include two auxiliary chambers as an art recognized equivalent structure (See Yin, Abstract, Fig. 16, paragraph 68.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
The previous rejection of claims 2-3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20020020344 A1 to Takano (hereinafter Takano) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20020020344 A1 to Takano (hereinafter Takano) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1 and cancellation of claim 2.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20020020344 A1 to Satoshi Takano (hereinafter Takano) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20020020344 A1 to Takano (hereinafter Takano) .
Regarding claim 3, Jeng does not explicitly teach vacuum pumps are coupled to the transfer vias and the link chamber.
Takano teaches vacuum pumps (4) are coupled to the transfer via (1) and the link chamber (3). (See Takano, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6, paragraph 39-40, 56, 62, 70-71, and 76-80.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include vacuum pumps are coupled to the transfer vias and the link chamber, because Takano teaches the use of vacuum pumps allows the pressure environment to be controlled and as a result contamination of a substrate surface in can be minimized. (See Takano, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6, paragraph 39-40, 56, 62, 70-71, and 76-80.)
Regarding claim 5, Jeng does not explicitly teach the valves are slit valves or gate valves.
Takano teaches the valves are slit valves or gate valves (14, 7, 9, 45, 40-70, 75). (See Takano, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6, paragraph 40, 62, 70-71, and 76-80.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the valves are slit valves or gate valves, because Takano teaches the use of valves allows the pressure environment to be controlled and as a result contamination of a substrate surface in can be minimized. (See Takano, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6, paragraph 40, 62, 70-71, and 76-80.)
The previous rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 3 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180305816 A1 to Akira Takahashi (hereinafter Takahashi) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20020020344 A1 to Satoshi Takano (hereinafter Takano) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 3 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180305816 A1 to Akira Takahashi (hereinafter Takahashi) .
Regarding claim 4, Jeng does not explicitly teach the vacuum pumps are cryopumps or turbopumps.
Takahashi is directed to use of pumps to reduce contamination of the substrate surface by impurities in a substrate processing apparatus.
Takahashi teaches the vacuum pumps are cryopumps or turbopumps. (See Takano, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6, paragraph 40, 62, 70-71, and 76-80.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the vacuum pumps are cryopumps or turbopumps, because Takano teaches the use of valves allows the pressure environment to be controlled and as a result contamination of a substrate surface in can be minimized. (See Takano, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6, paragraph 40, 62, 70-71, and 76-80.)
The previous rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20140086720 A1 to Kao & Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190148177 A1 to Yin et al (hereinafter Yin) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20060130750 to Ishikawa et al (hereinafter Ishikawa) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20020020344 A1 to Takano (hereinafter Takano) as applied to claim 3 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190148177 A1 to Yin et al (hereinafter Yin) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20020020344 A1 to Satoshi Takano (hereinafter Takano) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 3 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190148177 A1 to Yin et al (hereinafter Yin).
Regarding claim 4, Jeng does not explicitly teach the vacuum pumps are cryopumps or turbopumps.
Yin is directed to use of pumps in a substrate processing apparatus.
Yin teaches cryopumps or turbopumps are art recognized equivalents of vacuum pumps. (See Yin, Abstract, Fig. 2, paragraph 35.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention substitute cryopumps or turbopumps as an art recognized equivalent. (See Yin, Abstract, Fig. 2, paragraph 35.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
The previous rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190148177 A1 to Yin et al (hereinafter Yin) as applied to claim 6 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20020020344 A1 to Satoshi Takano (hereinafter Takano) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190148177 A1 to Yin et al (hereinafter Yin) as applied to claim 6 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt).
Regarding claim 7, Jeng does not explicitly teach each auxiliary chamber corresponds to a degas chamber.
Englhardt teaches a linked vacuuming processing tools and methods of using the same. (See Englhardt, Abstract, paragraphs 42, 44, 51, 56, 58, 63-64, and 70-71; Figs. 4A-4B, 7, 9, 14.)
Englhardt teaches a degas chamber (912) may be located on the processing tool (102a-b or on the transfer chamber (902). (See Engelhardt, Abstract, paragraphs 42, 44, 51, 56, 58, 63-64, and 70-71; Figs. 4A-4B, 7, 9, 14.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention include each auxiliary chamber corresponds to a degas chamber as an art recognized equivalent structure (See Englhardt, Abstract, paragraphs 42, 44, 51, 56, 58, 63-64, and 70-71; Figs. 4A-4B, 7, 9, 14.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
The previous rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080163095 A1 to Pannese et al (hereinafter Pannese) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20020020344 A1 to Satoshi Takano (hereinafter Takano) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080163095 A1 to Pannese et al (hereinafter Pannese).
Regarding claim 8, Jeng does not explicitly teach further comprising a system controller in communication with tool controllers of the processing tools, the system operable to receive data from the tool controllers of the processing tools, apply predictive modeling to the data, and provide instructions to the tool controllers corresponding to process commands directed to processing in and transfer of one or more substrates from process chambers of the processing tools.
Pannese is directed to a wafer-centric database and a real-time scheduler using a neural network and a graphical user interface provide improved computational efficiency for real time control and monitoring of semiconductor manufacturing process including complex scheduling decisions. (See Pannese, Abstract. )
Pannese teaches further comprising a system controller (controller, 220, 1304) in communication with tool controllers of the processing tools (a process tool 110, a different process tool 110), the system (controller, 220, 1304) operable to receive data ( i.e. wafer temperature 1102) from the tool controllers (device drivers, 1302) of the processing tools, apply predictive modeling to the data, and provide instructions to the tool controllers corresponding to process commands directed to processing in and transfer of one or more substrates from process chambers of the processing tools (a process tool 110, a different process tool 110). (See Pannese, Figs. 2, 7, 13; Abstract, paragraphs 8, 44-52, 52, 56, 58-59, 61-68, 70-71, 80, 122-125, 129. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further comprise a system controller in communication with tool controllers of the processing tools, the system operable to receive data from the tool controllers of the processing tools, apply predictive modeling to the data, and provide instructions to the tool controllers corresponding to process commands directed to processing in and transfer of one or more substrates from process chambers of the processing tools, because Pannese teaches the use of system of monitoring information and estimating values (estimates/models) may be used to optimize overall throughput by optimizing processing steps. (See Pannese, Figs. 2,7, 13; Abstract, paragraphs 8, 44-52, 52, 56, 58-59, 61-68, 70-71, 80, 122-125, 129. )
The previous rejection of claims 9 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 9.
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20020020344 A1 to Satoshi Takano (hereinafter Takano) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 9, Jeng teaches a system, comprising: a link tool, the link tool having:
a link chamber (57) having at least four facets;
a first transfer via (56) and a second transfer via (56), each transfer via including:
a staging position (inside 56) located therein, wherein each transfer via is angled at a first angle relative to the center of the staging position (inside 56), the first angle between 90 degrees and 180 degrees, wherein the first angle of the first transfer via (56) and the second transfer via (56) is the same. (See Jeng, Abstract, Fig. 6, col. 6, lines 29-46.)
Regarding claim 9, Jeng does not explicitly teach each transfer via including:
a first valve disposed at an interface of the transfer via and a facet of the link chamber , a second valve opposite the first valve, and
a staging position located therein, between first valve and the second valve.
Takano teaches a first valve (40) disposed at an interface of the transfer via (10) and a facet of the link chamber (20), a second valve (45) opposite the first valve, and
a staging position located therein, between first valve and the second valve. (See Takano, Abstract, Fig. 6, paragraphs 31, 61-62, and 66.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have each transfer via including:
a first valve disposed at an interface of the transfer via and a facet of the link chamber , a second valve opposite the first valve, and
a staging position located therein, between first valve and the second valve, because Takano teaches the transfer environment of a substrate is adjusted to prevent contamination of the substrate surface by impurities. (See Takano, Abstract, Fig. 6, paragraphs 31, 61-62, and 66.) (See Englehardt, Abstract, paragraphs 35, 41, 44-45, and 68-69.)
Regarding claim 9, Jeng does not explicitly teach a link robot disposed in the link chamber and a first processing tool coupled to the second valve of the first transfer via and a second processing tool coupled to the second valve of the second transfer via, each of the first processing tool and the second processing tool having:
a first transfer module, the first transfer module comprising:
load lock chambers coupled between a factory interface and a first transfer chamber of the first transfer module; an ancillary chamber and first, second, and third process chambers coupled to the first transfer chamber;
a second transfer module, the second transfer module comprising: pass-through chambers connecting the first transfer module and the second transfer module; and fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh process chambers coupled to a second transfer chamber, the second transfer chamber directly coupled to one of the first transfer via or the second transfer via, the link robot is operable to transfer one or more substrates from each of the first transfer via and the second transfer via to the first transfer module and the second transfer module .
Wang teaches multiple robots (148, 146) disposed in a chamber (137) operable to transfer one or more substrates from the transfer vias (126, 124, 128, 130) connectable to the transfer modules ( 120, 122, 176, 176 ) of the processing tools (104-110) and any other chamber or any other transfer via which are connectable to any of the other facets. (See Wang, Abstract, Figs. 1, 6-7, paragraphs 4-7, 9-12, 30, 31, 33, 35-38, 40, 42-45, and 47.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention include a link robot disposed in the link chamber and a first processing tool coupled to the second valve of the first transfer via and a second processing tool coupled to the second valve of the second transfer via, each of the first processing tool and the second processing tool having:
a first transfer module, the first transfer module comprising:
load lock chambers coupled between a factory interface and a first transfer chamber of the first transfer module; an ancillary chamber and first, second, and third process chambers coupled to the first transfer chamber;
a second transfer module, the second transfer module comprising: pass-through chambers connecting the first transfer module and the second transfer module; and fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh process chambers coupled to a second transfer chamber, the second transfer chamber directly coupled to one of the first transfer via or the second transfer via, the link robot is operable to transfer one or more substrates from each of the first transfer via and the second transfer via to the first transfer module and the second transfer module, because Wang teaches this structure is useful for transporting wafers from one location to a second location. (See Wang, Abstract, Figs. 1, 6-7, paragraphs 4-7, 9-12, 30, 31, 33, 35-38, 40, 42-45, and 47.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 9, Jeng teaches a first processing tool (tool 59 and accompanying chambers 4,4) coupled to the second arm of the first transfer via and a second processing tool (tool 58 and accompanying chambers 4, 4) coupled to the second arm of the second transfer via. (See Jeng, Abstract, Fig. 6, col. 6, lines 29-46.)
Jeng does not explicitly teach each of the first processing tool and the second processing tool having:
a first transfer module, the first transfer module comprising:
an ancillary chamber and first, second, and third process chambers coupled to the first transfer chamber;
a second transfer module, the second transfer module comprising: pass-through chambers connecting the first transfer module and the second transfer module; and fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh process chambers coupled to a second transfer chamber, the second transfer chamber directly coupled to one of the first transfer via or the second transfer via, the link robot is operable to transfer one or more substrates from each of the first transfer via and the second transfer via directly coupled to the second transfer chamber and any other chamber or any other transfer via which are connectable to any of the other facets.
Further regarding claim 9, Jeng teaches each of the first processing tool (102a) and the second processing tool (102b) having:
a first transfer module ( housing surrounding 108a, 108d ) , the first transfer chamber (108a; 108d) comprising:
ancillary chamber (106c; 106l) and first process chamber (106f; 106i), second process chamber (106e; 106j), third process chamber (106d; 106k), coupled to the first transfer chamber (108a;108d);
a second transfer module ( housing surrounding 108b; 108c),
the second transfer module ( housing surrounding 108b; 108c ) comprising: pass-through chambers (chambers directly between 108a and 108b; chambers directly between 108c and 108d) connecting the first transfer module ( housing surrounding 108a; 108d ) and the second transfer module ( housing surrounding 108b; 108c ); and fourth (106a; 106n), fifth (106g ; 106h), process chambers coupled to a second transfer chamber (housing surrounding 108b; 108c), the second transfer chamber (108b; 108c) coupled to one of the first transfer via (114a) or the second transfer via (114b). (See Englhardt, Abstract, Fig. 1c, paragraphs 6-8, 24, 33, 39, 41, 43-44, 47-51, 53, 55-65, 67-70,72, and 74 .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention include each of the first processing tool and the second processing tool having:
a first transfer module, the first transfer chamber (108a; 108d) comprising:
ancillary chamber and first process chamber, second process chamber, third process chamber, coupled to the first transfer chamber;
a second transfer module,
the second transfer module comprising: pass-through chambers connecting the first transfer module and the second transfer module ( housing surrounding 108b; 108c ); and fourth, fifth, process chambers coupled to a second transfer chamber, the second transfer chamber (108b; 108c) coupled to one of the first transfer via or the second transfer via, because Englhardt teaches this structure is useful for transporting wafers from one location to a second location. (See Englhardt, Abstract, Fig. 1c, paragraphs 6-8, 24, 33, 39, 41, 43-44, 47-51, 53, 55-65, 67-70,72, and 74 .)
Jeng does not explicitly teach the second transfer module comprising sixth, and seventh process chambers coupled to a second transfer chamber.
Englhardt teaches, in a different embodiment, the second transfer module comprising sixth (106d; 106j), and seventh process chambers (106c; 106g) coupled to a second transfer chamber (108b; 108d). ( See Englhardt, Abstract, paragraph 4, Fig. 14.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the second transfer module comprising sixth, and seventh process chambers coupled to a second transfer chamber with a reasonable expectation of success, because this would significantly increase the number of high vacuum chamber locations available on a mainframe. ( See Englhardt, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 29, 33-34, 71-72, Fig. 14.)
Jeng does not explicitly teach the first transfer module comprising: load lock chambers coupled between a factory interface and a first transfer chamber of the first transfer module.
Englhardt teaches, in a different embodiment, the first transfer module (housing of 108a, 108c) comprising: load lock chambers (118a, 118b) coupled between a factory interface (116a, 116b) and a first transfer chamber (108a, 108c) of the first transfer module (housing of 108a, 108c). ( See Englhardt, Abstract, paragraph 4, 7-8, 30-31, 34-38, 41, 44-45, 49, 51, 53, 56-59, 61-66, 69, and 72 Fig. 14.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the first transfer module comprising: load lock chambers coupled between a factory interface and a first transfer chamber of the first transfer module; with a reasonable expectation of success, because Englhardt teaches designs with short tunnels and linked tool extensions between interfaces and transfer chamber may be useful to reduce footprint. ( See Englhardt, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 29, 33-34, 71-72, Fig. 14.)
Jeng does not explicitly teach the link robot is operable to transfer one or more substrates from each of the first transfer via and the second transfer via directly coupled to the second transfer chamber and any other chamber or transfer via connectable to any of the other facets. ( See Englhardt, Abstract, paragraph 4, 7-8, 30-31, 34-38, 41, 44-45, 49, 51, 53, 56-59, 61-66, 69, and 72 Fig. 14.)
Englhardt teaches the link robot is operable to transfer one or more substrates from each of the first transfer via and the second transfer via directly coupled to the second transfer chamber and any other chamber or transfer via connectable to any of the other facets. ( See Englhardt, Abstract, paragraph 4, 7-8, 30-31, 34-38, 41, 44-45, 49, 51, 53, 56-59, 61-66, 69, and 72 Fig. 14.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the first transfer module comprising: load lock chambers coupled between a factory interface and a first transfer chamber of the first transfer module; with a reasonable expectation of success, because Englhardt teaches designs with short tunnels and linked tool extensions between interfaces and transfer chamber may be useful to reduce footprint. ( See Englhardt, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 29, 33-34, 71-72, Fig. 14.)
Regarding claim 15, Jeng does not explicitly teach the first chamber corresponds to a deposition chamber.
Englhardt teaches the first chamber corresponds to a deposition chamber. (See Englhardt, paragraph 42.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the first chamber corresponds to a deposition chamber, as an art recognized equivalent structure for first chamber. (See Englehardt, Abstract, paragraphs 35, 41, 44-45, and 68-69.)
The previous rejection of claims 10-11 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) as applied to claim 9 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20020020344 A1 to Takano (hereinafter Takano) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 9.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20020020344 A1 to Satoshi Takano (hereinafter Takano) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Jeng does not explicitly teach valves are disposed at interfaces the ancillary chamber and the first, second, and third process chambers and the first transfer chamber; and the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh process chambers and the second transfer chamber.
Takano is directed to a method to adjust the transfer environment to prevent contamination of the substrate surface by impurities.
Takano teaches valves are disposed at interfaces (40, 70 in Fig. 6) of the transfer vias and the link chamber, and the valves are disposable at the interfaces (7 in Fig. 1, 45, 75 in Fig. 6) of the transfer modules and the transfer vias. (See Takano, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6, paragraph 40, 62, 70-71, and 76-80.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include valves are disposed at interfaces of the ancillary chamber and the first, second, and third process chambers and the first transfer chamber; and the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh process chambers and the second transfer chamber, because Takano teaches the use of valves allows the pressure environment to be controlled and as a result contamination of a substrate surface in can be minimized. (See Takano, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6, paragraph 40, 62, 70-71, and 76-80.)
Regarding claim 11, Jeng does not explicitly teach vacuum pumps are coupled to the first transfer vias, the second transfer via, the link chamber, the first transfer module, and the second transfer module.
Takano teaches vacuum pumps (4) are coupled to the transfer via (1) and the link chamber (3). (See Takano, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6, paragraph 39-40, 56, 62, 70-71, and 76-80.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include vacuum pumps are coupled to the first transfer vias, the second transfer via, the link chamber, the first transfer module, and the second transfer module, because Takano teaches the use of vacuum pumps allows the pressure environment to be controlled and as a result contamination of a substrate surface in can be minimized. (See Takano, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6, paragraph 39-40, 56, 62, 70-71, and 76-80.)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20020020344 A1 to Satoshi Takano (hereinafter Takano) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 9 and further in view ofUS Pat. Pub. No. 20190148177 A1 to Yin et al (hereinafter Yin).
Regarding claim 14, Jeng does not explicitly teach two auxiliary chambers, each of the two auxiliary chambers coupled to a third facet and a fourth facet of the link chamber.
Yin teaches two auxiliary chambers, each of the two auxiliary chambers coupled to a third facet and a fourth facet of the link chamber. (See Yin, Abstract, Fig. 16, paragraph 68.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention include two auxiliary chambers, each of the two auxiliary chambers coupled to a third facet and a fourth facet of the link chamber as an art recognized equivalent. (See Yin, Abstract, Fig. 16, paragraph 68.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
The previous rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) as applied to claim 9 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080232948 A1 to van der Meulen et al (hereinafter van der Meulen) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 9.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20020020344 A1 to Satoshi Takano (hereinafter Takano) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 9 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080232948 A1 to van der Meulen et al (hereinafter van der Meulen).
Regarding claim 12, Jeng does not explicitly teach the staging position of at least one of the first transfer via and the second transfer via has a substrate alignment device.
van der Meulen is directed to a method to semiconductor wafer handling and transport.
van der Meulen teaches a link module may provide aligning capacity. (See van der Meulen, Abstract, Figs. 93 and 97, paragraphs 248, 296, and 366-367.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the staging position of at least one of the first transfer via and the second transfer via has a substrate alignment device, because van der Meulen teaches the use of link module with structure to provide a supplemental function such as alignment as an art recognized equivalent form of a link module (See van der Meulen, Abstract, Figs. 93 and 97, paragraphs 248, 296, and 366-367.)
The previous rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) as applied to claim 9 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080163095 A1 to Pannese et al (hereinafter Pannese) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 9.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20020020344 A1 to Satoshi Takano (hereinafter Takano) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 9 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080163095 A1 to Pannese et al (hereinafter Pannese).
Regarding claim 16, Jeng does not explicitly teach the link tool includes a system controller in communication with tool controllers of the first processing tool and the second processing tool, the system controller operable to receive data from tool controllers, and provide instructions to the tool controllers corresponding to process commands directed to processing in and transfer of one or more substrates from process chambers of the first processing tool and the second processing tool.
Pannese is directed to a wafer-centric database and a real-time scheduler using a neural network and a graphical user interface provide improved computational efficiency for real time control and monitoring of semiconductor manufacturing process including complex scheduling decisions. (See Pannese, Abstract. )
Pannese teaches the link tool includes a system controller (controller, 220, 1304) in communication with tool controllers of the first processing tool (a process tool 110) and the second processing tool ( a different process tool 110) , the system controller (controller, 220, 1304) operable to receive data ( i.e. wafer temperature 1102) from tool controllers (device drivers, 1302) , and provide instructions to the tool controllers (device drivers, 1302) corresponding to process commands directed to processing in and transfer of one or more substrates from process chambers of the first processing tool (a process tool 110) and the second processing tool ( a different process tool 110). (See Pannese, Figs. 2,7, 13; Abstract, paragraphs 8, 44-52, 52, 56, 58-59, 61-68, 70-71, 80, 129. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the link tool includes a system controller in communication with tool controllers of the first processing tool and the second processing tool, the system controller operable to receive data from tool controllers, and provide instructions to the tool controllers corresponding to process commands directed to processing in and transfer of one or more substrates from process chambers of the first processing tool and the second processing tool, because Pannese teaches the use of system of monitoring information and estimating values (estimates/models) may be used to optimize overall throughput by optimizing processing steps. (See Pannese, Figs. 2,7, 13; Abstract, paragraphs 8, 44-52, 52, 56, 58-59, 61-68, 70-71, 80, 122-125, 129. )
The previous rejection of claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20140086720 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claims 21 and 23.
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20140086720 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20020020344 A1 to Takano (hereinafter Takano).
Regarding claim 21, Jeng does not explicitly teach at least one of the transfer vias is coupled to a transfer module at a first side of the transfer module, opposite a factory interface on a second side of the transfer module.
Englhardt teaches at least one of the transfer vias (slanted chambers to the right and left of 160) is coupled to a transfer module (160) at a first side (above 160) of the transfer module, opposite a factory interface (bottom of Fig.4) on a second side (bottom of 160) of the transfer module (See Englhardt, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 32-33, and 37.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have at least one of the transfer vias is coupled to a transfer module at a first side of the transfer module, opposite a factory interface on a second side of the transfer module; because Englhardt teaches this an effective configuration for transferring substrates with reduced risk of contamination. (See Englhardt, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 32-33, and 37.)
Regarding claim 21, Jeng does not explicitly teach the second valve of at least one of the transfer vias is coupled to a transfer module at a first side of the transfer module.
Takano teaches the second valve of at least one of the transfer vias is coupled to a transfer module at a first side of the transfer module. (See Takano, Abstract, Fig 6, paragraphs 62-63, 70.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the second valve of at least one of the transfer vias is coupled to a transfer module at a first side of the transfer module; because Takano teaches this an effective structure between adjacent chambers when transferring substrates. (See Takano, Abstract, Fig 6, paragraphs 62-63, 70.)
Regarding claim 23, Jeng does not explicitly teach each transfer via of the is located between the link robot and the respective transfer module.
Englhardt teaches each transfer via of the is located between the link robot and the respective transfer module. (See Englhardt, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 32-33, and 37.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have each transfer via located between the link robot and the respective transfer module; because Englhardt teaches this an effective configuration for transferring substrates with reduced risk of contamination. (See Englhardt, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 32-33, and 37.)
Regarding claim 23, Jeng does not explicitly teach the first valve and the second valve of each transfer via of the is located between the link robot and the respective transfer module.
Takano teaches valve between transfer via and adjacent chamber. (See Takano, Abstract, Fig 6, paragraphs 62-63, 70.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have each transfer via of the is located between the link robot and the respective transfer module; because Takano teaches this an effective structure between adjacent chambers when transferring substrates. (See Takano, Abstract, Fig 6, paragraphs 62-63, 70.)
Claims 1 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and JP-2003059999 A to Shigeru et al ( hereinafter Shigeru) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Jeng teaches a system, comprising: a link chamber (57) having at least four facets;
two or more transfer vias ( via on left extending from lower opening of 59 to the upper portion of 57; via on right extending from lower opening of 58 to the upper portion of 57 in Fig. 6). (See Jeng, Abstract, Fig. 6, col. 6, lines 29-46.)
Regarding claim 1, Jeng does not explicitly teach a link robot disposed in the link chamber operable to transfer one or more substrates from the transfer vias connectable to the transfer modules of the processing tools and any other chamber or any other transfer via which are connectable to any of the other facets.
Wang is directed to use of robots in a substrate processing apparatus.
Wang teaches multiple robots (148, 146) disposed in a chamber (137) operable to transfer one or more substrates from the transfer vias (126, 124) connectable to the transfer modules ( 120, 122, 176, 176 ) of the processing tools (104-110) and any other chamber or any other transfer via which are connectable to any of the other facets. (See Wang, Abstract, Figs. 1, 6-7, paragraphs 4-7, 9-12, 30, 31, 33, 35-38, 40, 42-45, and 47.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention include a link robot disposed in the link chamber operable to transfer one or more substrates from the transfer vias connectable to the transfer modules of the processing tools and any other chamber or any other transfer via which are connectable to any of the other facets, because Wang teaches this structure is useful for transporting wafers from one location to a second location. (See Wang, Abstract, Figs. 1, 6-7, paragraphs 4-7, 9-12, 30, 31, 33, 35-38, 40, 42-45, and 47.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 1, Jeng does not explicitly teach each transfer via angled at a first angle relative to the center of the staging position, the first angle between 90 degrees and 180 degrees, wherein the first angle of at least the first transfer via and the second transfer via is the same.
Shigeru teaches vias (74 in Figs. 1, 7, and 10) allow substrates to be transported between processing tools (110, 34A-D). (See Shigeru, Abstract, Figs 1, 7, and 10.)
Shigeru teaches each transfer via is angled at a first angle relative to the center of the staging position, the first angle between 90 degrees and 180 degrees, wherein the first angle of at least the first transfer via and the second transfer via is the same. (See Shigeru, Abstract, Figs 1, 7, and 10.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have each transfer via is angled at a first angle relative to the center of the staging position, the first angle between 90 degrees and 180 degrees, wherein the first angle of at least the first transfer via and the second transfer via is the same, because Shigeru teaches this structure allows substrates to be temporarily holds the treated body and permits passage of the treated body. (See Shigeru, Abstract, paragraphs 35, 41, 44-45, and 68-69.)
Regarding claim 1, Jeng does not explicitly teach a first valve disposed at an interface of the transfer via and a facet of the link chamber, a second valve opposite the first valve, wherein the second valve of the first transfer via is configured to be disposed at an interface of the first transfer via and a first transfer module of a first processing tool, and wherein the second valve of the second transfer via is configured to be disposed at an interface of the second transfer via and a second transfer module of a second processing tool.
Shigeru teaches the transfer environment of a substrate is adjusted to prevent contamination of the substrate surface by impurities. (See Shigeru, Abstract, paragraphs 35, 41, 44-45, and 68-69.)
Shigeru teaches a first valve (40) disposed at an interface of the transfer via (10) and a facet of the link chamber (20), a second valve opposite the first valve, wherein the second valve (45) of the first transfer via (10) is configured to be disposed at an interface of the first transfer via and a first transfer module (20) of a first processing tool, and wherein the second valve (70) of the second transfer via is configured to be disposed at an interface of the second transfer via and a second transfer module of a second processing tool. (See Shigeru, Abstract, paragraphs 35, 41, 44-45, and 68-69.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have a first valve disposed at an interface of the transfer via and a facet of the link chamber, a second valve opposite the first valve, wherein the second valve of the first transfer via is configured to be disposed at an interface of the first transfer via and a first transfer module of a first processing tool, and wherein the second valve of the second transfer via is configured to be disposed at an interface of the second transfer via and a second transfer module of a second processing tool, because Shigeru teaches this structure allows substrates to be temporarily holds the treated body and permits passage of the treated body. (See Shigeru, Abstract, paragraphs 35, 41, 44-45, and 68-69.)
Regarding claim 1, Jeng does not explicitly teach a staging position located therein, between the first valve and the second valve, wherein each transfer via is angled at a first angle relative to the center of the staging position, the first angle between 90 degrees and 180 degrees, wherein the first angle of at least the first transfer via and the transfer via is the same.
Shigeru teaches a staging position located therein of each transfer via, wherein each transfer via is angled at a first angle relative to the center of the staging position, the first angle between 90 degrees and 180 degrees, wherein the first angle of at least the first transfer via and the transfer via is the same. (See Shigeru, Abstract, paragraphs 35, 41, 44-45, and 68-69.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have a staging position located therein of each transfer via, wherein each transfer via is angled at a first angle relative to the center of the staging position, the first angle between 90 degrees and 180 degrees, wherein the first angle of at least the first transfer via and the transfer via is the same, because Shigeru teaches this structure allows substrates to be temporarily holds the treated body and permits passage of the treated body. (See Shigeru, Abstract, paragraphs 35, 41, 44-45, and 68-69.)
Regarding claim 22, Jeng teaches the link robot is operable to transfer one or more substrates directly from the first transfer module (56 on left) connected to a second transfer module (56 on right). (See Jeng, Abstract, Fig. 6, col. 6, lines 29-46.)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and JP-2003059999 A to Shigeru et al ( hereinafter Shigeru) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190148177 A1 to Yin et al (hereinafter Yin).
Regarding claim 6, Jeng does not explicitly teach two auxiliary chambers.
Yin teaches two auxiliary chambers. (See Yin, Abstract, Fig. 16, paragraph 68.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention include two auxiliary chambers as an art recognized equivalent structure (See Yin, Abstract, Fig. 16, paragraph 68.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and JP-2003059999 A to Shigeru et al ( hereinafter Shigeru) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20020020344 A1 to Takano (hereinafter Takano) .
Regarding claim 3, Jeng does not explicitly teach vacuum pumps are coupled to the transfer vias and the link chamber. Takano teaches vacuum pumps (4) are coupled to the transfer via (1) and the link chamber (3). (See Takano, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6, paragraph 39-40, 56, 62, 70-71, and 76-80.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include vacuum pumps are coupled to the transfer vias and the link chamber, because Takano teaches the use of vacuum pumps allows the pressure environment to be controlled and as a result contamination of a substrate surface in can be minimized. (See Takano, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6, paragraph 39-40, 56, 62, 70-71, and 76-80.)
Regarding claim 5, Jeng does not explicitly teach the valves are slit valves or gate valves.
Takano teaches the valves are slit valves or gate valves (14, 7, 9, 45, 40-70, 75). (See Takano, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6, paragraph 40, 62, 70-71, and 76-80.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the valves are slit valves or gate valves, because Takano teaches the use of valves allows the pressure environment to be controlled and as a result contamination of a substrate surface in can be minimized. (See Takano, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6, paragraph 40, 62, 70-71, and 76-80.)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and JP-2003059999 A to Shigeru et al ( hereinafter Shigeru) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 3 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180305816 A1 to Akira Takahashi (hereinafter Takahashi).
Regarding claim 4, Jeng does not explicitly teach the vacuum pumps are cryopumps or turbopumps.
Takahashi is directed to use of pumps to reduce contamination of the substrate surface by impurities in a substrate processing apparatus.
Takahashi teaches the vacuum pumps are cryopumps or turbopumps. (See Takano, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6, paragraph 40, 62, 70-71, and 76-80.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the vacuum pumps are cryopumps or turbopumps, because Takano teaches the use of valves allows the pressure environment to be controlled and as a result contamination of a substrate surface in can be minimized. (See Takano, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6, paragraph 40, 62, 70-71, and 76-80.)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and JP-2003059999 A to Shigeru et al ( hereinafter Shigeru) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 3 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190148177 A1 to Yin et al (hereinafter Yin).
Regarding claim 4, Jeng does not explicitly teach the vacuum pumps are cryopumps or turbopumps.
Yin is directed to use of pumps in a substrate processing apparatus.
Yin teaches cryopumps or turbopumps are art recognized equivalents of vacuum pumps. (See Yin, Abstract, Fig. 2, paragraph 35.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventionsubstitute cryopumps or turbopumps as an art recognized equivalent. (See Yin, Abstract, Fig. 2, paragraph 35.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and JP-2003059999 A to Shigeru et al ( hereinafter Shigeru) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190148177 A1 to Yin et al (hereinafter Yin) as applied to claim 6 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt).
Regarding claim 7, Jeng does not explicitly teach each auxiliary chamber corresponds to a degas chamber.
Englhardt teaches a linked vacuuming processing tools and methods of using the same. (See Englhardt, Abstract, paragraphs 42, 44, 51, 56, 58, 63-64, and 70-71; Figs. 4A-4B, 7, 9, 14.)
Englhardt teaches a degas chamber (912) may be located on the processing tool (102a-b or on the transfer chamber (902). (See Engelhardt, Abstract, paragraphs 42, 44, 51, 56, 58, 63-64, and 70-71; Figs. 4A-4B, 7, 9, 14.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention include each auxiliary chamber corresponds to a degas chamber as an art recognized equivalent structure. (See Englhardt, Abstract, paragraphs 42, 44, 51, 56, 58, 63-64, and 70-71; Figs. 4A-4B, 7, 9, 14.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and JP-2003059999 A to Shigeru et al ( hereinafter Shigeru) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080163095 A1 to Pannese et al (hereinafter Pannese).
Regarding claim 8, Jeng does not explicitly teach further comprising a system controller in communication with tool controllers of the processing tools, the system operable to receive data from the tool controllers of the processing tools, apply predictive modeling to the data, and provide instructions to the tool controllers corresponding to process commands directed to processing in and transfer of one or more substrates from process chambers of the processing tools.
Pannese teaches further comprising a system controller (controller, 220, 1304) in communication with tool controllers of the processing tools (a process tool 110, a different process tool 110), the system (controller, 220, 1304) operable to receive data ( i.e. wafer temperature 1102) from the tool controllers (device drivers, 1302) of the processing tools, apply predictive modeling to the data, and provide instructions to the tool controllers corresponding to process commands directed to processing in and transfer of one or more substrates from process chambers of the processing tools (a process tool 110, a different process tool 110). (See Pannese, Figs. 2, 7, 13; Abstract, paragraphs 8, 44-52, 52, 56, 58-59, 61-68, 70-71, 80, 122-125, 129. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further comprise a system controller in communication with tool controllers of the processing tools, the system operable to receive data from the tool controllers of the processing tools, apply predictive modeling to the data, and provide instructions to the tool controllers corresponding to process commands directed to processing in and transfer of one or more substrates from process chambers of the processing tools, because Pannese teaches the use of system of monitoring information and estimating values (estimates/models) may be used to optimize overall throughput by optimizing processing steps. (See Pannese, Figs. 2,7, 13; Abstract, paragraphs 8, 44-52, 52, 56, 58-59, 61-68, 70-71, 80, 122-125, 129. )
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and JP-2003059999 A to Shigeru et al ( hereinafter Shigeru) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt).
Regarding claim 9, Jeng teaches a system, comprising: a link tool, the link tool having:
a link chamber (57) having at least four facets;
a first transfer via (56) and a second transfer via (56), each transfer via including:
a staging position (inside 56) located therein, wherein each transfer via is angled. (See Jeng, Abstract, Fig. 6, col. 6, lines 29-46.)
Regarding claim 9, Jeng does not explicitly teach each transfer via at a first angle relative to the center of the staging position , the first angle between 90 degrees and 180 degrees, wherein the first angle of the first transfer via and the second transfer via is the same.
Shigeru teaches each transfer via at a first angle relative to the center of the staging position, the first angle between 90 degrees and 180 degrees, wherein the first angle of the first transfer via and the second transfer via is the same. (See Shigeru, Abstract, paragraphs 35, 41, 44-45, and 68-69.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have each transfer via at a first angle relative to the center of the staging position , the first angle between 90 degrees and 180 degrees, wherein the first angle of the first transfer via and the second transfer via is the same, because Shigeru teaches this structure allows substrates to be temporarily holds the treated body and permits passage of the treated body. (See Shigeru, Abstract, paragraphs 35, 41, 44-45, and 68-69.)
Regarding claim 9, Jeng does not explicitly teach each transfer via including:
a first valve disposed at an interface of the transfer via and a facet of the link chamber, a second valve opposite the first valve, and
a staging position located therein, between first valve and the second valve.
Shigeru teaches a first valve (upper 80 and on right) disposed at an interface of the transfer via (74) and a facet of the link chamber (36), a second valve (upper 80 and on the left) opposite the first valve, and
a staging position located therein, between first valve and the second valve. (See Shigeru, Abstract, paragraphs 35, 41, 44-45, and 68-69.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have each transfer via including:
a first valve disposed at an interface of the transfer via and a facet of the link chamber, a second valve opposite the first valve, and
a staging position located therein, between first valve and the second valve, because Shigeru teaches this structure allows substrates to be temporarily holds the treated body and permits passage of the treated body. (See Shigeru, Abstract, paragraphs 35, 41, 44-45, and 68-69.)
Regarding claim 9, Jeng does not explicitly teach a link robot disposed in the link chamber and a first processing tool coupled to the second valve of the first transfer via and a second processing tool coupled to the second valve of the second transfer via, each of the first processing tool and the second processing tool having:
a first transfer module, the first transfer module comprising:
load lock chambers coupled between a factory interface and a first transfer chamber of the first transfer module; an ancillary chamber and first, second, and third process chambers coupled to the first transfer chamber;
a second transfer module, the second transfer module comprising: pass-through chambers connecting the first transfer module and the second transfer module; and fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh process chambers coupled to a second transfer chamber, the second transfer chamber directly coupled to one of the first transfer via or the second transfer via, the link robot is operable to transfer one or more substrates from each of the first transfer via and the second transfer via to the first transfer module and the second transfer module .
Wang teaches multiple robots (148, 146) disposed in a chamber (137) operable to transfer one or more substrates from the transfer vias (126, 124, 128, 130) connectable to the transfer modules ( 120, 122, 176, 176 ) of the processing tools (104-110) and any other chamber or any other transfer via which are connectable to any of the other facets. (See Wang, Abstract, Figs. 1, 6-7, paragraphs 4-7, 9-12, 30, 31, 33, 35-38, 40, 42-45, and 47.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention include a link robot disposed in the link chamber and a first processing tool coupled to the second valve of the first transfer via and a second processing tool coupled to the second valve of the second transfer via, each of the first processing tool and the second processing tool having:
a first transfer module, the first transfer module comprising:
load lock chambers coupled between a factory interface and a first transfer chamber of the first transfer module; an ancillary chamber and first, second, and third process chambers coupled to the first transfer chamber;
a second transfer module, the second transfer module comprising: pass-through chambers connecting the first transfer module and the second transfer module; and fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh process chambers coupled to a second transfer chamber, the second transfer chamber directly coupled to one of the first transfer via or the second transfer via, the link robot is operable to transfer one or more substrates from each of the first transfer via and the second transfer via to the first transfer module and the second transfer module, because Wang teaches this structure is useful for transporting wafers from one location to a second location. (See Wang, Abstract, Figs. 1, 6-7, paragraphs 4-7, 9-12, 30, 31, 33, 35-38, 40, 42-45, and 47.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 9, Jeng teaches a first processing tool (tool 59 and accompanying chambers 4,4) coupled to the second arm of the first transfer via and a second processing tool (tool 58 and accompanying chambers 4, 4) coupled to the second arm of the second transfer via. (See Jeng, Abstract, Fig. 6, col. 6, lines 29-46.)
Jeng does not explicitly teach each of the first processing tool and the second processing tool having:
a first transfer module, the first transfer module comprising:
an ancillary chamber and first, second, and third process chambers coupled to the first transfer chamber;
a second transfer module, the second transfer module comprising: pass-through chambers connecting the first transfer module and the second transfer module; and fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh process chambers coupled to a second transfer chamber, the second transfer chamber directly coupled to one of the first transfer via or the second transfer via, the link robot is operable to transfer one or more substrates from each of the first transfer via and the second transfer via directly coupled to the second transfer chamber and any other chamber or any other transfer via which are connectable to any of the other facets.
Further regarding claim 9, Englhardt teaches each of the first processing tool (102a) and the second processing tool (102b) having:
a first transfer module ( housing surrounding 108a, 108d ) , the first transfer chamber (108a; 108d) comprising:
ancillary chamber (106c; 106l) and first process chamber (106f; 106i), second process chamber (106e; 106j), third process chamber (106d; 106k), coupled to the first transfer chamber (108a;108d);
a second transfer module ( housing surrounding 108b; 108c),
the second transfer module ( housing surrounding 108b; 108c ) comprising: pass-through chambers (chambers directly between 108a and 108b; chambers directly between 108c and 108d) connecting the first transfer module ( housing surrounding 108a; 108d ) and the second transfer module ( housing surrounding 108b; 108c ); and fourth (106a; 106n), fifth (106g ; 106h), process chambers coupled to a second transfer chamber (housing surrounding 108b; 108c), the second transfer chamber (108b; 108c) coupled to one of the first transfer via (114a) or the second transfer via (114b). (See Englhardt, Abstract, Fig. 1c, paragraphs 6-8, 24, 33, 39, 41, 43-44, 47-51, 53, 55-65, 67-70,72, and 74 .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention include each of the first processing tool and the second processing tool having:
a first transfer module, the first transfer chamber (108a; 108d) comprising:
ancillary chamber and first process chamber, second process chamber, third process chamber, coupled to the first transfer chamber;
a second transfer module,
the second transfer module comprising: pass-through chambers connecting the first transfer module and the second transfer module ( housing surrounding 108b; 108c ); and fourth, fifth, process chambers coupled to a second transfer chamber, the second transfer chamber (108b; 108c) coupled to one of the first transfer via or the second transfer via, because Englhardt teaches this structure is useful for transporting wafers from one location to a second location. (See Englhardt, Abstract, Fig. 1c, paragraphs 6-8, 24, 33, 39, 41, 43-44, 47-51, 53, 55-65, 67-70,72, and 74 .)
Jeng does not explicitly teach the second transfer module comprising sixth, and seventh process chambers coupled to a second transfer chamber.
Englhardt teaches, in a different embodiment, the second transfer module comprising sixth (106d; 106j), and seventh process chambers (106c; 106g) coupled to a second transfer chamber (108b; 108d). ( See Englhardt, Abstract, paragraph 4, Fig. 14.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the second transfer module comprising sixth, and seventh process chambers coupled to a second transfer chamber with a reasonable expectation of success, because this would significantly increase the number of high vacuum chamber locations available on a mainframe. ( See Englhardt, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 29, 33-34, 71-72, Fig. 14.)
Jeng does not explicitly teach the first transfer module comprising: load lock chambers coupled between a factory interface and a first transfer chamber of the first transfer module.
Englhardt teaches, in a different embodiment, the first transfer module (housing of 108a, 108c) comprising: load lock chambers (118a, 118b) coupled between a factory interface (116a, 116b) and a first transfer chamber (108a, 108c) of the first transfer module (housing of 108a, 108c). ( See Englhardt, Abstract, paragraph 4, 7-8, 30-31, 34-38, 41, 44-45, 49, 51, 53, 56-59, 61-66, 69, and 72 Fig. 14.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the first transfer module comprising: load lock chambers coupled between a factory interface and a first transfer chamber of the first transfer module; with a reasonable expectation of success, because Englhardt teaches designs with short tunnels and linked tool extensions between interfaces and transfer chamber may be useful to reduce footprint. ( See Englhardt, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 29, 33-34, 71-72, Fig. 14.)
Jeng does not explicitly teach the link robot is operable to transfer one or more substrates from each of the first transfer via and the second transfer via directly coupled to the second transfer chamber and any other chamber or transfer via connectable to any of the other facets. ( See Englhardt, Abstract, paragraph 4, 7-8, 30-31, 34-38, 41, 44-45, 49, 51, 53, 56-59, 61-66, 69, and 72 Fig. 14.)
Englhardt teaches the link robot is operable to transfer one or more substrates from each of the first transfer via and the second transfer via directly coupled to the second transfer chamber and any other chamber or transfer via connectable to any of the other facets. ( See Englhardt, Abstract, paragraph 4, 7-8, 30-31, 34-38, 41, 44-45, 49, 51, 53, 56-59, 61-66, 69, and 72 Fig. 14.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the first transfer module comprising: load lock chambers coupled between a factory interface and a first transfer chamber of the first transfer module; with a reasonable expectation of success, because Englhardt teaches designs with short tunnels and linked tool extensions between interfaces and transfer chamber may be useful to reduce footprint. ( See Englhardt, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 29, 33-34, 71-72, Fig. 14.)
Regarding claim 15, Jeng does not explicitly teach the first chamber corresponds to a deposition chamber.
Englhardt teaches the first chamber corresponds to a deposition chamber. (See Englhardt, paragraph 42.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first chamber corresponds to a deposition chamber as an art recognized equivalent structure for a first chamber.
Claims 10-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and JP-2003059999 A to Shigeru et al ( hereinafter Shigeru) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) as applied to claim 9 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20020020344 A1 to Takano (hereinafter Takano).
Regarding claim 10, Jeng does not explicitly teach valves are disposed at interfaces the ancillary chamber and the first, second, and third process chambers and the first transfer chamber; and the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh process chambers and the second transfer chamber.
Takano is directed to a method to adjust the transfer environment to prevent contamination of the substrate surface by impurities.
Takano teaches valves are disposed at interfaces (40, 70 in Fig. 6) of the transfer vias and the link chamber, and the valves are disposable at the interfaces (7 in Fig. 1, 45, 75 in Fig. 6) of the transfer modules and the transfer vias. (See Takano, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6, paragraph 40, 62, 70-71, and 76-80.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include valves are disposed at interfaces of the ancillary chamber and the first, second, and third process chambers and the first transfer chamber; and the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh process chambers and the second transfer chamber, because Takano teaches the use of valves allows the pressure environment to be controlled and as a result contamination of a substrate surface in can be minimized. (See Takano, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6, paragraph 40, 62, 70-71, and 76-80.)
Regarding claim 11, Jeng does not explicitly teach vacuum pumps are coupled to the first transfer vias, the second transfer via, the link chamber, the first transfer module, and the second transfer module.
Takano teaches vacuum pumps (4) are coupled to the transfer via (1) and the link chamber (3). (See Takano, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6, paragraph 39-40, 56, 62, 70-71, and 76-80.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include vacuum pumps are coupled to the first transfer vias, the second transfer via, the link chamber, the first transfer module, and the second transfer module, because Takano teaches the use of vacuum pumps allows the pressure environment to be controlled and as a result contamination of a substrate surface in can be minimized. (See Takano, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6, paragraph 39-40, 56, 62, 70-71, and 76-80.)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and JP-2003059999 A to Shigeru et al ( hereinafter Shigeru) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) as applied to claim 9 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190148177 A1 to Yin et al (hereinafter Yin).
Regarding claim 14, Jeng does not explicitly teach two auxiliary chambers, each of the two auxiliary chambers coupled to a third facet and a fourth facet of the link chamber.
Yin teaches two auxiliary chambers, each of the two auxiliary chambers coupled to a third facet and a fourth facet of the link chamber. (See Yin, Abstract, Fig. 16, paragraph 68.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention include two auxiliary chambers, each of the two auxiliary chambers coupled to a third facet and a fourth facet of the link chamber as an art recognized equivalent. (See Yin, Abstract, Fig. 16, paragraph 68.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and JP-2003059999 A to Shigeru et al ( hereinafter Shigeru) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) as applied to claim 9 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080232948 A1 to van der Meulen et al (hereinafter van der Meulen).
Regarding claim 12, Englhardt does not explicitly teach the staging position of at least one of the first transfer via and the second transfer via has a substrate alignment device.
van der Meulen is directed to a method to semiconductor wafer handling and transport.
van der Meulen teaches a link module may provide aligning capacity. (See van der Meulen, Abstract, Figs. 93 and 97, paragraphs 248, 296, and 366-367.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the staging position of at least one of the first transfer via and the second transfer via has a substrate alignment device, because van der Meulen teaches the use of link module with structure to provide a supplemental function such as alignment as an art recognized equivalent form of a link module (See van der Meulen, Abstract, Figs. 93 and 97, paragraphs 248, 296, and 366-367.)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and JP-2003059999 A to Shigeru et al ( hereinafter Shigeru) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) as applied to claim 9 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080163095 A1 to Pannese et al (hereinafter Pannese).
Regarding claim 16, Jeng does not explicitly teach the link tool includes a system controller in communication with tool controllers of the first processing tool and the second processing tool, the system controller operable to receive data from tool controllers, and provide instructions to the tool controllers corresponding to process commands directed to processing in and transfer of one or more substrates from process chambers of the first processing tool and the second processing tool.
Pannese is directed to a wafer-centric database and a real-time scheduler using a neural network and a graphical user interface provide improved computational efficiency for real time control and monitoring of semiconductor manufacturing process including complex scheduling decisions. (See Pannese, Abstract. )
Pannese teaches the link tool includes a system controller (controller, 220, 1304) in communication with tool controllers of the first processing tool (a process tool 110) and the second processing tool ( a different process tool 110) , the system controller (controller, 220, 1304) operable to receive data ( i.e. wafer temperature 1102) from tool controllers (device drivers, 1302) , and provide instructions to the tool controllers (device drivers, 1302) corresponding to process commands directed to processing in and transfer of one or more substrates from process chambers of the first processing tool (a process tool 110) and the second processing tool ( a different process tool 110). (See Pannese, Figs. 2,7, 13; Abstract, paragraphs 8, 44-52, 52, 56, 58-59, 61-68, 70-71, 80, 129. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the link tool includes a system controller in communication with tool controllers of the first processing tool and the second processing tool, the system controller operable to receive data from tool controllers, and provide instructions to the tool controllers corresponding to process commands directed to processing in and transfer of one or more substrates from process chambers of the first processing tool and the second processing tool, because Pannese teaches the use of system of monitoring information and estimating values (estimates/models) may be used to optimize overall throughput by optimizing processing steps. (See Pannese, Figs. 2,7, 13; Abstract, paragraphs 8, 44-52, 52, 56, 58-59, 61-68, 70-71, 80, 122-125, 129. )
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,328,815 B1 to Jeng et al (hereinafter Jeng) and JP-2003059999 A to Shigeru et al ( hereinafter Shigeru) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030131458 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20140086720 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20020020344 A1 to Takano (hereinafter Takano).
Regarding claim 21, Jeng does not explicitly teach at least one of the transfer vias is coupled to a transfer module at a first side of the transfer module, opposite a factory interface on a second side of the transfer module.
Englhardt teaches at least one of the transfer vias (slanted chambers to the right and left of 160) is coupled to a transfer module (160) at a first side (above 160) of the transfer module, opposite a factory interface (bottom of Fig.4) on a second side (bottom of 160) of the transfer module (See Englhardt, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 32-33, and 37.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have at least one of the transfer vias is coupled to a transfer module at a first side of the transfer module, opposite a factory interface on a second side of the transfer module; because Englhardt teaches this an effective configuration for transferring substrates with reduced risk of contamination. (See Englhardt, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 32-33, and 37.)
Regarding claim 21, Jeng does not explicitly teach the second valve of at least one of the transfer vias is coupled to a transfer module at a first side of the transfer module.
Takano teaches the second valve of at least one of the transfer vias is coupled to a transfer module at a first side of the transfer module. (See Takano, Abstract, Fig 6, paragraphs 62-63, 70.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the second valve of at least one of the transfer vias is coupled to a transfer module at a first side of the transfer module; because Takano teaches this an effective structure between adjacent chambers when transferring substrates. (See Takano, Abstract, Fig 6, paragraphs 62-63, 70.)
Regarding claim 23, Jeng does not explicitly teach each transfer via of the is located between the link robot and the respective transfer module.
Englhardt teaches each transfer via of the is located between the link robot and the respective transfer module. (See Englhardt, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 32-33, and 37.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have each transfer via located between the link robot and the respective transfer module; because Englhardt teaches this an effective configuration for transferring substrates with reduced risk of contamination. (See Englhardt, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 32-33, and 37.)
Regarding claim 23, Jeng does not explicitly teach the first valve and the second valve of each transfer via of the is located between the link robot and the respective transfer module.
Takano teaches valve between transfer via and adjacent chamber. (See Takano, Abstract, Fig 6, paragraphs 62-63, 70.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have each transfer via of the is located between the link robot and the respective transfer module; because Takano teaches this an effective structure between adjacent chambers when transferring substrates. (See Takano, Abstract, Fig 6, paragraphs 62-63, 70.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-12, 14-16, and 21-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
US Pat. Pub. No. 20140086720 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20020020344 A1 to Takano (hereinafter Takano) is being used to address the limitations added to the claims in a first set of rejections.
JP-2003059999 A to Shigeru et al ( hereinafter Shigeru) is being used to address the limitations added to the claims in a second set of rejections.
The limitation of an “arm” of a “transfer via” can be interpreted to include an end effector, or arm of a robot which is used in the transfer via or additionally as a path or passage.
Conclusion
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 KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights