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 November 27, 2024 was received and has been entered. Claims 1, 8-9, 12, and 16 were amended. Claims 13 and 19 were cancelled. Claims 1-12 and 14-16 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to 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 awkward. A suggested revision is as follows:
“a link robot disposed in the link chamber operable to transfer one or more substrates from the transfer vias any other transfer via which are connectable to any of the at least five facets”.
The following limitation in claim 9 is awkward : 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 at least five facets.
A suggested revision is as follows: “the link robot is operable to transfer one or more substrates from each of the first transfer via and the second transfer via any other transfer via connectable to any of the at least five facets”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The previous rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more based on the claim limitation : “system operable to… apply predictive modeling to the data” is withdrawn based on the limitation being deleted from claim 8.
The previous rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more based on the claim limitation : “system operable to… apply predictive modeling to the data” is withdrawn based on the limitation being deleted from claim 16.
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. 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) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a system, comprising: a link chamber (460) having facets;
two or more transfer vias (462, 464) each transfer via coupled to a facet (port facing 560, port facing 420) of the link chamber, the transfer vias (462, 464) connectable to transfer modules ( modules adjacent 560 or 160 ) of the processing tools (120, 140, 520, 540) , and a link robot (466) disposed in the link chamber (460) operable to transfer one or more substrates from the transfer vias connectable to the transfer modules ( modules adjacent 560 or 160 ) of the processing tools (120, 140, 520, 540) and any other chamber or transfer via connectable to any of the facets. (See Liu, Abstract, Fig. 4 and paragraphs 22-23 and 32-38.)
Regarding claim 1, Liu does not explicitly teach the link tool having a link chamber having at least five facets.
Yin is directed to use of pumps in a substrate processing apparatus.
Yin teaches a transfer chamber with at least five facets. (See Yin, Abstract, Fig. 16, paragraph 68.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a link chamber having at least five facets 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).
Liu 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 transfer via connectable to any of the at least five facets.
Yin teaches a transfer chamber with at least five facets. (See Yin, Abstract, Fig. 16, paragraph 68.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to 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 transfer via connectable to any of the at least five facets 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).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches each of the first transfer via (462) and the second transfer via (464) includes a staging position (stage in each of 462 and 464). (See Liu, paragraphs 32-34, and Fig. 4.) Examiner is considering a buffer stage to be equivalent to a staging position.
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches each of the first transfer via and the second transfer via have a center of the staging position an appear to be angled at the same angle, however, Liu does not explicitly teach each of the first transfer via and the second transfer via are angled relative to a center of the staging position at the same angle (See Liu, paragraphs 32-34, and Fig. 4.)
Ishikawa is directed to cluster tool architecture for processing a substrate.
Ishikawa teaches to minimize process variability is the issue of assuring each substrate run through a tool has the same “wafer history”. (See Ishikawa, Abstract and paragraph 8. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include each of the first transfer via and the second transfer via are angled relative to a center of the staging position at the same angle, because an ordinary artisan based on the teaching of Ishikawa understand that both transfer via having the same angle to a center of the staging position would reduce variations (i.e. timing between the recipe steps) because this would help reduce process variability and help perform a fabrication process that provides a uniform and repeatable process result. (See Ishikawa, Abstract and paragraph 8. )
Regarding claim 1, Liu does not explicitly teach the two or more transfer vias are angled at a non-normal angle relative to the center of a stage position.
Englhardt is directed to linked processing tool system (LPT). (See Englhardt, Abstract, Figs. 1C-12, and paragraphs 29-30, 34-36, 71-72, 74. )
Englhardt teaches the two or more transfer vias (114a, 114b in Fig. 1C and 16; 414a-414d; 909a, 909b; are angled at a non-normal angle relative to the center of a stage position. (See Englhardt, Abstract, Figs. 1C-12, and paragraphs 8, 35, 41, 44-45, 49, 51, 53, 63-64, 68-69, and 74. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the two or more transfer vias are angled at a non-normal angle relative to the center of a stage position; because Englhardt teaches vias 114a-b allow substrates to be transported between processing tools allowing substrate to be transported to the various chamber locations of each processing tool within the LPT system and may significantly increase the number of high vacuum or “clean” chamber locations available on a mainframe increasing throughput and reducing cost of ownership. (See Englhardt, Abstract, Figs. 1C-12, and paragraphs 8, 29,30, 34, 35, 36 41, 44-45, 49, 51, 53, 63-64, 68-69, and 74. )
Regarding claim 6, Liu 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 at the time the invention was made to 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. 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) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20020020344 A1 to Takano (hereinafter Takano). is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1
Claims 2-3 and 5 are rejected 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) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20020020344 A1 to Takano (hereinafter Takano).
Regarding claim 2, Liu does not explicitly teach valves are disposed at interfaces of the transfer vias and the link chamber, and the valves are disposable at the interfaces of the transfer modules and the transfer vias.
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 transfer vias and the link chamber, and the valves are disposable at the interfaces of the transfer modules and the transfer vias, 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 3, Liu 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, Liu 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. 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) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20020020344 A1 to Takano (hereinafter Takano) 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. 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) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20020020344 A1 to Takano (hereinafter Takano) 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) as applied to claim 3 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180305816 A1 to Akira Takahashi (hereinafter Takahashi).
Regarding claim 4, Liu 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) in view of 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. 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).
Regarding claim 4, Liu 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 at the time the invention was made to 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. 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) 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. 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) 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, Liu 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 at the time the invention was made to 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. 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) 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. 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) 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, Kao 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. 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) 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. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140086720 A1 to Kao & Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) .
Regarding claim 9, Englhardt teaches a system, comprising: a link tool (100c in Fig. 1C), the link tool having a link chamber (112) having five facets;
a first transfer via (114a) coupled to a first facet (port facing 108b) of the link chamber and a second transfer via (114b) coupled to a second facet (port facing 108c) of the link chamber (112). (See Englhardt, Abstract, Fig. 1C, paragraphs 35, 41, 43-45, 49-51, 64, and 68-70.)
Regarding claim 9, Englhardt does not explicitly teach each of the first transfer via and the second transfer via includes a staging position.
Liu teaches each of the first transfer via (462) and the second transfer via (464) includes a staging position (stage in each of 462 and 464). (See Liu, paragraphs 32-34, and Fig. 4.) Examiner is considering a sub-buffer stage to be equivalent to a staging position.
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 each of the first transfer via and the second transfer via includes a staging position with a reasonable expectation of success, because this would enable the robot to transfer the substrates between process tools. (See Liu, paragraphs 32-34, and Fig. 4.)
Englhardt does not explicitly teach a link robot disposed in the link chamber.
Englhardt teaches robots are conventional to employ to transport substrates. ( Englhardt, Abstract, paragraph 4.)
Englhardt teaches a robot is used to transfer substrates between processing tools (102a, 102b). ( Englhardt, paragraph 66 and Fig. 15.)
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 a link robot in the link chamber with a reasonable expectation of success, because this would enable the robot to transfer the substrates between process tools. ( See Englhardt, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 66, and Figs. 1C and 15.)
Regarding claim 9, Englhardt teaches the two or more transfer vias (114a, 114b in Fig. 1C and 16; 414a-414d; 909a, 909b; are angled at a non-normal angle relative to the center of a stage position, the non-normal angle of the first transfer via and the second transfer via is the same. (See Englhardt, Abstract, Figs. 1C-12, and paragraphs 8, 35, 41, 44-45, 49, 51, 53, 63-64, 68-69, and 74. )
Further regarding claim 9, Englhardt teaches a first processing tool (102a) coupled to the first transfer via (114a) and a second processing tool (102b) coupled to the second transfer via (114b) ,
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:
first process chamber (106f; 106i), second process chamber (106e; 106j), third process chamber (106d; 106k), ancillary chamber (106c; 106l) 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 .)
Englhardt teaches a second transfer module, the second transfer module comprising: multiple process chambers, but does not explicitly teach, in the same embodiment, 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.)
Regarding claim 9, Englhardt teaches each of the first transfer via and the second transfer via have a center of the staging position an appear to be angled at the same angle, however, Englhardt does not explicitly teach each of the first transfer via and the second transfer via are angled relative to a center of the staging position at the same angle
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the two or more transfer vias are angled at a non-normal angle relative to the center of a stage position, the non-normal angle of the first transfer via and the second transfer via is the same; because Englhardt teaches vias 114a-b allow substrates to be transported between processing tools allowing substrate to be transported to the various chamber locations of each processing tool within the LPT system and may significantly increase the number of high vacuum or “clean” chamber locations available on a mainframe increasing throughput and reducing cost of ownership. (See Englhardt, Abstract, Figs. 1C-12, and paragraphs 8, 29,30, 34, 35, 36 41, 44-45, 49, 51, 53, 63-64, 68-69, and 74.)
Englhardt does not teach, in the same embodiment, 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.)
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 at least five 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.)
Regarding claim 15, Englhardt teaches the first chamber corresponds to a deposition chamber. (See Englhardt, paragraph 42.)
The previous rejection of claims 10-11 and 14 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) 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 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140086720 A1 to Kao & Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) as applied to claim 9 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20020020344 A1 to Takano (hereinafter Takano).
Regarding claim 10, Englhardt does not explicitly teach valves are disposed at interfaces of the first transfer via and the link chamber, and the second transfer via and the link chamber; the second transfer chamber of the first processing tool and the first transfer via, and the second transfer chamber of the second processing tool and the second transfer via; 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 first transfer via and the link chamber, and the second transfer via and the link chamber; the second transfer chamber of the first processing tool and the first transfer via, and the second transfer chamber of the second processing tool and the second transfer via; 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, Englhardt 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.)
Regarding claim 14, Englhardt 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 at the time the invention was made to 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. 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) 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. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140086720 A1 to Kao & Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) 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 having 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 having 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 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. 20080232948 A1 to van der Meulen et al (hereinafter van der Meulen) as applied to claim 12 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20060130750 to Ishikawa et al (hereinafter Ishikawa) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 13.
The previous rejection of claim 16 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) 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. Pub. No. 20140044503 A1 to Englhardt et al (hereinafter Englhardt) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140086720 A1 to Kao & Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) 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, Englhardt 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. )
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 and 14-16 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.
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 extension fee 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 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