DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 31 October 2025 has been entered.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Location of subject matter setting forth “wherein the controller is configured to control the transport mechanism to execute a first transport pattern and a second transport pattern, … wherein the first transport pattern includes a free state in which the two substrates are not placed on either surfaces of the first substrate holder and the second substrate holder, and wherein the controller is further configured to control the substrate transport mechanism to execute transport of another substrate, which is different from the two substrates, during the free state” is requested. Note: Although, evidence, clarification and/or correction is requested, this objection should not be considered encouragement to add any “new matter” to the disclosure.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: claim 15, a processing module/first processing module/second processing module which have been interpreted as a CST (cooling) module or an orienter module and equivalents thereto as set forth in the specification, e.g., at para. 17; claim 20 suction mechanism has been interpreted as a vacuum pump and equivalents thereto as set forth in the specification, e.g., at para. 104.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15-31 are rejected 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. Any claims not specifically mentioned are rejected based on their dependence. With respect to claim 15, and the newly added subject matter, Applicant points to paras. 62-66 and Fig. 4 for support, which do not appear to a describe “a free state” corresponding to a “first transfer pattern” corresponding to wafers W1 and W2 and the specific transfer pattern set forth in Fig. 5 and claim 15 and claims dependent thereon. Additionally, there is no evidence that the claimed controller is configured to control the substrate transport mechanism to execute the first transport pattern as presently claimed and disclosed and add/insert the claimed “free” state, let alone how it would be incorporated. Clarification and/or correction is requested. Nevertheless, the claims have been examined as written.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 15-19 and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0269088 to Nozawa in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0290886 Hashimoto et al.
Regarding claim 15: Nozawa discloses a substrate processing apparatus substantially as claimed and comprising: a load port (e.g., Figs. 1 and 5, 12) in which a substrate accommodation container (“FOUP”) capable of accommodating a substrate placed, the load port being included in an atmospheric portion in which the substrate is processed under atmospheric pressure; a load lock chamber (30) through which the substrate is delivered between the atmospheric portion and a decompressed portion (e.g., 42, 50, 52, 54 and 56) in which the substrate is processed under a reduced pressure; a processing module configured to process the substrate in the atmospheric portion, including a first processing module (e.g., 16 or 18) configured to process one substrate at a time and a second processing module (20) configured to simultaneously process two or more substrates (at one time); a substrate transport mechanism configured to transport the substrate between the load port, the load lock chamber, the first processing module and the second processing module, and including an arm portion (see e.g., Figs. 1 and 5, not numbered, portions connected between 14a/b and base of robot), a first substrate holder (14a) and a second substrate holder (14b), wherein each of the first substrate holder and the second substrate holder is connected to a tip of the arm portion and is configured to hold one substrate (also see, e.g., para. 30); and a controller (70 and 72) configured to control operations of the substrate transport mechanism, wherein the controller is configured to execute a first transport pattern for transporting one substrate between the load port and the first processing module, and a second transport pattern for transporting two or more substrates between the load port and the second processing module.
However, Nozawa fails to explicitly teach the first transport pattern includes transporting two substrates one by one between the load port and the first processing module by one of the first substrate holder and the second substrate holder while the two substrates are not placed on a surface of the other of the first substrate holder and the second substrate holder; and transporting the two substrates one by one between the first processing module and the load lock chamber by the other one of the first substrate holder and the second substrate holder while the two substrates are not placed on a surface of the one of the first substrate holder, and wherein the second transport pattern includes: simultaneously transporting the two substrates between the load port and the second processing module by the first substrate holder and the second substrate holder.
Hashimoto et al. disclose a substrate transport mechanism including a first substrate holder (9 or 10 of 6) and a second substrate holder (12 or 13 of 7) wherein various transport patterns may be used including a first pattern wherein the first substrate holder may be used to drop off and/or pick up a single substrate at a location, without the second substrate holder contacting the substrate; and a second pattern wherein the first substrate holder and the second substate holder simultaneously drop off and/or pick up a plurality of substrates for the purpose of, inter alia, providing substrate handling processes that are flexible and have reduced time requirements (see, e.g., Figs. 1-2, 5 and 21-24; abstract, and paras. 12, 46-48, 136-154). Hashimoto et al. also teaches that whether the first substrate holder or the second substrate holder is used can be selected based on the needs and requirements of the system. It is also noted that the courts have ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the first transport pattern as claimed and the second transport pattern as claimed and executed by the controller in Nozawa in order to provide substrate transport patterns accommodating transfer of one or more substrates individually or simultaneously using a first substrate holder and as second substrate holder that are flexible and have reduced time requirements that can be selected based on the needs and requirements of the system as taught by Hashimoto et al.
Regarding the final paragraphs of claim 15, which merely require a third substrate, for example, to be transported as part of the first transport pattern, this too is considered obvious over the modified teachings of modified Nozawa, as set forth above, including using the controller to control the substate transport mechanism to cause the same, wherein there is no limit to the number of steps or number of substrates transported in a given transport pattern in Hashimoto et al. “Another substrate” could be transported during a “free state” as part of the first transport pattern, before, during or after the other claimed transportation features of the first transport pattern.
Again, it is noted that the courts have ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
With respect to claim 16, the first substrate holder and the second substrate holder are installed in a vertical direction in both Nozawa and Hashimoto et al. Also, in Nozawa the load lock chamber includes a plurality of substrate stages installed in the vertical direction (see, e.g., Fig. 5) and one substrate is configured to be placed on each substrate stage, wherein a distance between adjacent substrate stages of the plurality of stages and a distance between the first substrate holder and the second substrate holder are different from each other. Finally, in the teachings of modified Nozawa, Hashimoto et al., as detailed above, describes selecting optimized transport patterns based on flexibility and time savings, such that the claimed transfer patterns are considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic.
With respect to claim 17, in modified Nozawa, the first substrate holder may be located at a bottom position and the second substrate holder may located at a top position. Finally, in the teachings of modified Nozawa, Hashimoto et al., as detailed above, describes selecting optimized transport patterns based on flexibility and time savings, such that the claimed transfer patterns are considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic.
With respect to claim 18, in the teachings of modified Nozawa, Hashimoto et al., as detailed above, describes selecting optimized transport patterns based on flexibility and time savings, such that the claimed transfer patterns are considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic. It is also noted that the specific mechanism or means for setting identification numbers is not recited in the claims. Thus, setting of identification numbers may be arbitrarily defined.
With respect to claims 19, Nozawa teach providing a suction holder, which may be considered common, on the first substrate holder and the second substrate holder for the purpose of suctioning a wafer thereto (see, e.g., para. 30). Additionally, Hashimoto et al. disclose the suction holder may comprise suction holes (21 and see, e.g., para. 100). Additionally, note that the courts have ruled the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to claim 28, Nozawa teach providing a suction holder on a substrate holder for the purpose of suctioning a wafer thereto (see, e.g., para. 30).
With respect to claim 29, in modified Nozawa et al., Nozawa et al. disclose one of the first processing module and the second processing module is an orienter module (16 or 18) configured to adjust horizontal orientation of the at least one substrate of the plurality of substrates; and wherein the other one of the first processing module and the second processing module is a cooling module (20) configured to perform cooling on the at least one substrate of the plurality of substrates
With respect to claim 30, Nozawa further discloses the decompressed portion including a decompressed processing module (50, 52, 54, 56), the decompressed processing module is one capable of chemical oxide removal (COR) (i.e., etching) or capable of heating (see, e.g., para. 36).
Claim(s) 20-23 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Nozawa as applied to claims 15-19 and 28-30 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0104732 to White.
Modified Nozawa discloses the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Nozawa fails to disclose a common suction mechanism is connected to the suction holders of the first substrate holder and the second substrate holder.
White teaches providing a common facility source, including vacuum, for the purpose of, inter alia, minimizing unneeded resources and thus optimizing efficiency (see, e.g., para. 54).
Thus, it would have been obvious to have provided the suction holders connected to a common suction mechanism in modified Nozawa in order to minimize unneeded resources and thus optimize efficiency as taught by White.
With respect to claim 21, in the teachings of modified Nozawa, Hashimoto et al., as detailed above, describes selecting optimized transport patterns based on flexibility and time savings, such that the claimed transfer patterns are considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic.
With respect to claim 22, in Nozawa, one of the first processing module and the second processing module is an orienter module (16, 18) configured to adjust horizontal orientation of the at least one substrate of the plurality of substrates and the other one of the first processing module and the second processing module is a cooling module (20) configured to perform cooling processing on the at least one substrate of the plurality of substrates.
With respect to claim 23, Nozawa further discloses the decompressed portion including a decompressed processing module (50, 52, 54, 56) each capable of processing the plurality of substrates, the decompressed processing module is one capable of chemical oxide removal (COR) (i.e., etching) or capable of heating (see, e.g., para. 36).
With respect to claim 26, in White, in addition to providing a common facility source, for example for vacuum, individual and dedicated sources are also provided. See, e.g., para. 51.
With respect to claim 27, identification numbers may be set for the plurality of substrates respectively. It is noted that the specific mechanism or means for setting identification numbers is not recited in the claims. Thus, setting of identification numbers may be arbitrarily defined.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Nozawa as applied to claims 20-23 and 26-27 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0371883 Takahashi et al.
Modified Nozawa discloses the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Nozawa fails to disclose a substrate detector configured to detect presence of the substrate on the first substrate holder or the second substrate holder.
Takahashi et al. teach providing substrate detectors at on ceiling portion of a substrate processing apparatus for the purpose of detecting whether a substrate is passed or not (see, e.g., para. 53).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a substrate detector on a ceiling portion of the substrate processing apparatus of modified Nozawa in order to detect whether a substrate is being passed or not as taught by Takahashi et al.
With respect to claim 25, modified Nozawa fails to explicitly teach the substrate detector is installed on the substrate transport mechanism. However, the courts have ruled the mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Nozawa as applied to claims 15-19 and 28-30 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0371883 Takahashi et al.
Modified Nozawa discloses the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Nozawa fails to disclose a substrate detector configured to detect presence of the substrate on the substrate holder.
Takahashi et al. teach providing substrate detectors at on ceiling portion of a substrate processing apparatus for the purpose of detecting whether a substrate is passed or not (see, e.g., para. 53).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a substrate detector on a ceiling portion of the substrate processing apparatus of modified Nozawa in order to detect whether a substrate is being passed or not as taught by Takahashi et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 31 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 34 has been cancelled and the subject matter has been added to independent claim 15. Applicant has argued that the subject matter, regarding providing a “free state” as part of “the first transport pattern” is not obvious over the relied upon prior art.
With respect to the Applicant’s arguments regarding the obviousness of providing a “free state” as part of the first transport pattern, it is noted that Applicant’s arguments appear to rely upon it being performed at a specific time as compared to the other features of the first transfer pattern. However, this is not claimed. Additionally, as addressed above (see above specification objection and claim rejection under 35 USC 112, a), this does not appear to be originally disclosed either. Furthermore, as broadly claimed, modified Nozawa continues to render the feature obvious. For example, “Another substrate” could be transported during a “free state” as part of the first transport pattern, before, during or after the other claimed transportation features of the first transport pattern.
As previously explained, the overall disclosure of Hashimoto et al. teaches various transport patterns may be used including patterns where individual wafers are transported sequentially or simultaneously using one or more of a first substrate holder or a second substrate holder for the purpose of providing substrate handling processes that are flexible and have reduced time requirements (see, e.g., Figs. 1-2, 5 and 21-24; abstract, and paras. 12, 46-48, 136-154). Hashimoto et al. also teach that whether the first substrate holder and/or the second substrate holder is used simultaneously and/or sequentially in transport patterns can be selected based on the needs and requirements of the system. Finally, again noted that the courts have ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR 20090077865 disclose substrate transfer equipment with a variable end effector.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached on (571) 272-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716