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 .
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: second transfer unit, return unit, and third transfer unit.
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
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rangarajan (US 2021/0323118, previously cited) in view of Xu (US 10857646, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Rangarajan teaches a substrate transferring system comprising: a first transfer unit (elements 140) to transfer a substrate (180) and a second transfer unit (120; see annotated fig 5B below) to transfer a substrate along a circular second orbit while rotating on a second axis perpendicular to the ground (as shown in fig 5B below; details of second transfer unit 120 shown in fig 1A and rotation described in [0077]), wherein the first transfer unit and the second orbit overlap with each other at a first point, and at the first point, a substrate is transferred from the first transfer unit to the second transfer unit or from the second transfer unit to the first transfer unit (as described [0084]), wherein the second axis is outside the first transfer unit during the transfer (as shown in fig 5B), wherein the substrate transferring system further comprises a loader (142) to transfer the substrate at the first point between the first transfer unit and the second transfer unit (as described in [0085]; details shown in fig 1A).
Rangarajan does not teach the first transfer unit transfers the substrate along a circular first orbit while rotating on a first axis perpendicular to the ground, or comprising a plurality of spaced arms extending from the first axis. Xu teaches a substrate transfer system comprising a first transfer unit (21) configured to transfer a substrate along a circular first orbit while rotating on a first axis perpendicular to a ground (as described col 4, lines 14-19 and shown in fig 1), wherein the first orbit overlaps with a range of a second transfer unit (11; fig 1), the first transfer unit comprising a plurality of spaced arms (22) extending from the first axis (fig 4; extending horizontally from central axis). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the first transfer unit of Rangarajan to transfer the substrate by rotating along a circular first orbit while rotating on a first axis perpendicular to the ground and with a plurality of spaced arms extending from the first axis, resulting in overlapping first and second orbits with the second axis outside the first orbit during the transfer and a transfer of the substrate to or from a first arm of the plurality of arms, as this rotating transfer unit allows improved transfer efficiency while occupying a small space as taught by Xu (col 4, lines 29-35).
Regarding claim 2, Rangarajan, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Rangarajan further teaches the first transfer unit receives a substrate from a return unit (534) or transfers a substrate to the return unit (534; described [0126]) at a second point on the first orbit (when the orbiting transfer unit of Xu is used in place of the first transfer unit as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, this occurs at the “initial position” considered the second point, as described in paragraph starting col 6, line 64).
Regarding claim 3, Rangarajan, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as described above. Rangarajan further teaches the return unit (534) transfers an unpolished substrate from a cassette (536) to the first transfer unit ([0126]) at the second point (second point described in rejection of claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 4, Rangarajan, as modified by Xu, teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as described above. Xu further teaches the first transfer unit (included in Rangarajan as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) transfers a substrate from the first point to the second point while simultaneously transferring another substrate from the second point to the first point (capable of simultaneous movement between points due to the rotating of the transfer unit).
Regarding claim 5, Rangarajan, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as described above. Rangarajan further teaches the second orbit overlaps with a first platen (151) on which a polishing pad (152 shown in detail in fig 1A) is seated at a third point (see annotated fig below), and at the third point, polishing is performed on the substrate (as shown in fig 5B).
Regarding claims 6-7, Rangarajan, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as described above. Rangarajan further teaches while the substrate is polished at the third point, at the first point, another substrate is transferred from the first transfer unit to the second transfer unit or from the second transfer unit to the first transfer unit (described in [0074]); and the second transfer unit transfers a substrate from the third point to the first point while simultaneously transferring another substrate from the first point to the third point (capable of simultaneous movement due to the use of two carriers 130a, 130b which rotate about second axis; [0095]).
Regarding claim 8, Rangarajan, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 7 as described above. Rangarajan further teaches a third transfer unit (120, see annotated fig below) to transfer a substrate along a circular third orbit while rotating on a third axis perpendicular to the ground, wherein the first orbit (orbit of first transfer unit as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) and the third orbit overlap with each other at a fourth point, and at the fourth point, a substrate is transferred from the first transfer unit to the third transfer unit or from the third transfer unit to the first transfer unit (see annotated fig below; [0084]).
Regarding claim 9, Rangarajan, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Rangarajan further teaches the third orbit overlaps with a second platen (151) on which a polishing pad (152 shown in detail in fig 1A) is seated at a fifth point (see annotated fig below), and at the fifth point, polishing is performed on the substrate at the fifth point (as shown in fig 5B).
Regarding claims 10-11, Rangarajan, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as described above. Rangarajan further teaches while the substrate is polished at the fifth point, at the fourth point, another substrate is transferred from the first transfer unit to the third transfer unit or from the third transfer unit to the first transfer unit (described in [0074]); and the third transfer unit transfers a substrate from the fifth point to the fourth point while simultaneously transferring another substrate from the fourth point to the fifth point (capable of simultaneous movement due to the use of two carriers 130a, 130b which rotate about second axis; [0095]).
Regarding claim 12, Rangarajan, as modified by Xu, teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Xu further teaches the first transfer unit (rotatable unit of Xu included in system of Rangarajan as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above) transfers a first substrate from the second point to the first point while simultaneously transferring a second substrate from the first point to the fourth point and simultaneously transferring a third substrate from the fourth point to the second point (capable of simultaneous movement between points due to the rotating of the transfer unit).
PNG
media_image1.png
609
972
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 Dec 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1 and its dependents, applicant argues that Rangarajan teaches away from Xu. More specifically, applicant argues that the conveying system of Rangarajan includes a linear shuttle system (elements 530, 532, 534) for delivering substrates along a linear path to several polishing stations, and replacing this linear shuttle system with the rotary system of Xu would render Rangarajan incapable of delivering the substrates along the linear path. However, as detailed in the rejection above, the rejection does not contemplate replacing the linear shuttle system of Rangarajan. Elements 140 of Rangarajan have together been identified as the claimed first transfer unit. As shown in the annotated figure above, these elements are between two transfer units which each carry a substrate to a polishing pad. While Rangarajan does not teach the first transfer unit is rotatable about a vertical axis, this unit is capable of holding and transferring a plurality of wafers between the two additional transfer units, similar to the transferring system of Xu. The first transfer unit of Rangarajan does not participate in the linear travel, and making it rotatable based on the teachings of Xu would not eliminate or prohibit the additional linear transfer system of Rangarajan, contrary to applicant’s arguments. A rotatable first transfer unit in Rangarajan would improve the system’s ability to transfer wafers between adjacent polishing stations, while the linear system would still allow for linear transfer to additional polishing stations. There is nothing in Rangarajan which teaches away from or dissuades a person of ordinary skill from using such a rotatable first transfer unit.
Conclusion
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 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 MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights