DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on December 2, 2025. Claims 1 and 8 are amended; claim 22 is canceled; claim 23 is new.
The applicant contends that the cited prior art fails to disclose the new material directed to third weight measuring unit, specifically the aspects of a “guide along which the third support arm is movable,” whereby said arm “falls along the guide [at] a load proportional to a weight of the third support arm” (pp. 11-12).
In response, the examiner accepts this characterization and has withdrawn the previous rejections. Subsequent further search, however, new rejections have been applied below.
Lastly, the examiner observes that the mechanism of the fixed and movable arms (371, 372) that constitute the lot forming and releasing units seems to be a feature undisclosed by the prior art of record, specifically the operations of Figures 6-9 where the two arms, by strategically availing passing and holding grooves, either aggregates or disaggregates two batches of substrates. The examiner suggests a future amendment which incorporates these aspects into claim 1.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to, as paragraph [0060] describes the following operation: “the batch transfer unit 36 inserts a plurality of…substrates…into the passing groove 372b of the fixed hand and passes the substrates W to the fixed hand 371.” Firstly, reference character “372b” denotes the holding groove of the movable hand, not the “passing groove of the fixed hand.” Secondly, it appears that the batch transfer unit is loading the second batch of substrates into the holding grooves (371b) of the fixed hand (371), which are then collected by the movable hand (372) during its act of elevation shown by Figure 9. Thus, it seems the phrase into the holding grooves 371b of the fixed hand ought to replace the existing diction of “into the passing groove 372b of the fixed hand.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 1 and its dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed had possession of the claimed invention. The penultimate paragraph of claim 1 has been amended to recite an “elevating drive configured to generate a driving force to raise and lower the third support arm,” but the original disclosure lacks support for this language. Specifically, the term “elevating drive” is new matter. Although paragraph [0045] invokes an “elevating mechanism” which has a “driving force,” the former is a nonce term and the latter is the functional effect of using the former. Because the driving force is a functional outcome, it cannot substitute as a structural definition to thereby yield the novel term of “elevating drive.” Nevertheless, to advance prosecution, the claim will be examined as written until the matter’s resolution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-14, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onzuka et al., US 2018/0166310, in view of Lee et al., US 2017/0345688, Lee, KR 10-1586940, hereafter “KR,” where machine translation is relied upon, Chen et al., US 2004/0225399, and Sada, US 6,129,546.
Claims 1, 11: Onzuka discloses a substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 2), comprising:
A cassette block (2) configured to mount a cassette, including:
A mounting stage (5) on which the cassette is mounted [0025];
A first transfer unit (12) including a first arm;
A processing block (7) configured to process the substrate, including:
A processing module comprising a rinsing tank (32) that removes a part of a substrate [0043, 0045];
A second transfer unit (22) including a second arm [0041];
A relay block (3) configured to relay the substrate between the cassette and processing blocks, comprising:
An aligner (70), constituted as a spin chuck (71), that adjusts a position of a notch of the substrate [0031, 0035];
A controller (40) including a CPU for regulating the mechanisms constituting the processing apparatus [0049].
Onzuka is silent regarding the operation of weight measurement generally; therefore, the reference is necessarily silent regarding the specific mechanisms of the first through third weight measuring units. Claim 1 defines the first weight measuring unit as comprising a first support arm for handling substrates prior to processing by the processing block and the second weight measuring unit as comprising a second support arm for handling substrates subsequent processing. It should be observed, then, that Onzuka provides, within the relay block, a first support arm (21a) for handling pre-processed wafers and a second support arm (21b) for handling post-processed wafers ([0039-40]; Figs. 5-6).
Concerning the matter of weight measurement, Lee describes a semiconductor apparatus comprising a liquid processing block (280), a cassette block (10), and a relay block (220) configured to transfer the substrates therebetween ([0039]; Fig. 1). In order to determine if the resultant mass is within the appropriate specification, the substrates are weighed before and after processing within the relay block [0016]. Given that Onzuka’s liquid processing method similarly intends to alter the mass of the substrate by a specified amount, it would have been obvious to integrate the technique of pre- and post-process weighing to determine the adequacy of the operation and initiate corrective steps if necessary. As noted, the examiner understands Lee’s relay block (220) to be homologous to Onzuka’s relay block (3). And following Lee’s nomination of the relay block as an apposite site for the weight sensor, it would have been further obvious to execute weighing within this portion of Onzuka’s apparatus.
Continuing, KR discloses a batch etching apparatus comprising a first support arm (212) mounted on a first weight sensor (213) and a second support arm (312) mounted on a second weight sensor (313). As shown by Figure 1, the first support arm (212) handles pre-processed substrates, and the second support arm (312) handles post-processed substrates. This organization permits KR to assess the substrate’s pre-process and post-process weight to determine the removal amount of the etching process. Onzuka’s relay block, as previously disclosed, comprises a first support arm (21a) for handling pre-processed substrates and a second support arm (21b) for handling post-processed substrates, and the Office considers these respective arms to be analogous to KR’s first and second support arms (Figs. 5-6). Coupled with Lee’s suggestion to execute substrate weighing within the relay block, it would have been obvious to incorporate first and second weight sensors within Onzuka’s corresponding first and second support arms to achieve the predictable result of determining the removal amount of an etching sequence.
Lastly, Onzuka’s spin chuck (71) does not include a support arm moveable along a guide, the arm does not contain “pins,” nor does the spin chuck comprise a third weight sensor, as claim 1 now requires. In supplementation, Chen discloses a substrate support chuck (31) in which a plurality of pins (32) selectively extend through the chuck’s upper surface to bear the substrate ([0043-44]; Fig. 3). The pins, in turn, are coupled to a sensor which permits the operator to weigh a given substrate before and after processing to determine the change in weight [0045]. Chen, though, does not disclose the mechanism for actuating the pins vertically. Sada is cited to address this omission, where the reference affixes the base of each lift pin (62) to a horizontal support arm (80) within the context of a substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 3). In addition, Sada couples the support arm to a guide formed within an elevating drive (84) that raises and lowers the lift pins (7, 27-34). It would have been obvious to incorporate a third weight sensor, as taught by Chen, within Onzuka’s aligner to achieve the predictable result of determining the change in substrate weight attributable to an act of processing. It would have been further obvious to provide a support arm which couples the lift pins to an elevating drive, as taught by Sada, to enable the vertical movement of said lift pins. Necessarily, the downward force induced by the weight of the support arm will act upon the incorporated weight sensor in a manner proportionate to the load.
Claim 3: Onzuka’s processing block (7) comprises a plurality of processing modules (31-36), each including a rinsing tank [0043]. The controller is capable of weighing the batch retrieved from each tank and then performing a comparison – a recitation concerning the manner in which a claimed apparatus is to be employed does not differentiate the apparatus from prior art satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham 2, USPQ2D 1647). The controller circuitry responsible for this operation may be deemed the “inter-module difference determination circuit.”
Claim 4: Onzuka’s apparatus is capable of etching, peeling, and polishing – a recitation concerning the manner in which a claimed apparatus is to be employed does not differentiate the apparatus from prior art satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham 2, USPQ2D 1647).
Claim 7: Onzuka’s apparatus is of the batch type [0020].
Claim 8: Onzuka’s apparatus is capable of holding wafers at normal and half pitches and converting therebetween [0040]. Further, the mere act of replicating the already disclosed weight measuring unit and embedding it within any mechanism bearing a substrate is within the scope of ordinary skill, as it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Claims 10, 23: Onzuka’s rinsing tank (31) stores a processing liquid to immerse the substrates as a batch and includes a holder (37a) (Fig. 7-8). Regarding the weight sensor, the mere act of replicating the already disclosed weight measuring unit and embedding it within any mechanism bearing a substrate is within the scope of ordinary skill, as it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Claim 12: The mere act of replicating the already disclosed weight measuring unit and embedding it within any mechanism bearing a substrate is within the scope of ordinary skill, as it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Claim 13: Onzuka furnishes a drying chamber (8) to batch dry processed substrates [0048]. The chamber can be filled with any type of fluid, including a “processing liquid” – a recitation concerning the manner in which a claimed apparatus is to be employed does not differentiate the apparatus from prior art satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham 2, USPQ2D 1647).
Continuing, the drying chamber (8) also includes a holder (25) [0048]. Regarding the weight sensor, the mere act of replicating the already disclosed weight measuring unit and embedding it within any mechanism bearing a substrate is within the scope of ordinary skill, as it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Claim 14: The circuitry of the controller dedicated to weighing the substrates within the dryer may be deemed the “drying defect determination circuit.”
Claim 21: Although KR “calculates the total etching amount of the wafer from the measured quantity of the sensor,” the reference does not explicitly assert that the tare weight is determined beforehand. Nevertheless, one of ordinary is also one of ordinary discernment and, surely, would understand that the weight of the substrate holder must be calculated and subtracted from the gross weight to determine the net weight of the wafer as a matter of common sense. In other words, the concept of taring is a known technique that one of ordinary skill would have applied to the weight measuring unit of the composite prior art apparatus to determine the weight of the substrate specifically.
(KR’s understanding that the post-process substrate weight must be subtracted from the pre-process substrate weight to determine the removal amount already implies conceptual comprehension of taring. And given conceptual comprehension of taring, one would understand that the substrate’s holder must be subtracted from the gross weight to determine the substrate’s weight.)
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onzuka in view of Lee, Chen, Sada, and KR, and in further view of Markle et al., US 6,790,376.
Claim 2: Lee does not suggest changing a processing condition in view of abnormal weight detection. Markle, however, discloses an etching process in which substrate weight is monitored to assess the status of material removal (9, 25-49). In the event that the removal amount is outside a permissible range, the controller adjusts a processing condition to compensate for the abnormality (9, 50-59). The physical circuit within the controller that is responsible for this adjustment may be deemed the “removal condition changing circuit.” It would have been obvious to adjust the parameters of a process proceeding outside specification in order to render the substrate operationally viable.
Claim 15: Markle, above, already addresses the feature of a controller capable of adjusting processing parameters. The precise circuit executing this adjustment may be deemed the “drying condition changing circuit.”
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onzuka in view of Lee, Chen, Sada, and KR, and in further view of Jegal, US 2006/0112978.
Lee does not suggest embedding a weight sensor within a mounting stage or transfer unit. Jegal, though, provides an array of rinsing tanks (110) for performing batch substrate treatments ([0021]; Fig. 1). In order to assess the status of the substrates post-processing, Jegal embeds a weight sensor (50) within the support arm (30) of the transfer unit that conveys wafers to and from the processing tanks to weigh the substrates in comparison to a reference mass stored by a controller (34), whereby said controller determines whether the weight is within a permissible range [0026]. The examiner notes that Jegal’s support arm (30) is analogous to Onzuka’s second transfer unit, and it is the Office’s position that it would have been obvious to integrate a weight sensor within the arm of the second transfer unit to achieve the predictable result of immediately identifying weight discrepancies within the substrate batch.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Honda et al., US 2019/0371595. Honda teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising a cassette block (2), a processing block (6), and a relay block (3) configured to relay the substrate between the cassette and processing blocks. Further, the system includes a controller (7), a mounting stage (10), and first (11) and second (19) transfer units, each including arms ([0024-30]; Fig. 1).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716