DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 26, 2025, has been entered.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 24-25 are amended.
The applicant contends that Ikeya does not disclose a control system which initiates a temperature adjustment of the transfer robot while the wafer remains in the first chamber, as the new material of claim 1 stipulates. Rather, Ikeya adjusts the transfer robot’s temperature during the transfer process (pp. 10-11).
In response, the examiner does not believe the respective scopes of these two inventions diverges by a sufficient margin to support a conclusion of non-obviousness. The final paragraph of claim 1 reads: “wherein the control system…cause[s] the heater and the cooling mechanism to begin to adjust the transfer robot temperature when the wafer is still in a first chamber.” The physical boundary of this interval is the outermost wall of the first chamber, whereby, so long as the wafer remains at least partially inside this wall, the wafer is “still in a first chamber.” One can imagine an open transfer port formed within an outer wall of the first chamber, where the instant before the wafer passes through the plane of the transfer port, it is “in” the first chamber and the instant after it passes through the plane of the port, it is “out” of the first chamber. Applicant’s claimed embodiment, then, as it pertains to the initiation point of the transfer robot’s temperature adjustment, extends all the way until the instant before the wafer passes through the transfer port while being held by the holding member.
Turning to Ikeya, Figure 17 illustrates an embodiment in which the wafer passes through an intermediate chamber (338), a heating chamber (310), and a cooling chamber (312), as facilitated by the holding member (324) of the transfer robot (320). Figure 20 depicts wafer temperature throughout the duration of the processing sequence, whereby the temperature of the transfer robot begins to adjust at the instant a given treatment is terminated. For example, at the moment the five-minute intermediate treatment concludes at 5:00, the wafer, now borne by the holding member, begins an upward temperature adjustment: “Once the semiconductor wafer 314 is set on the delivery arm 324, the controller 334 starts operating the heating coil 388 to control the temperature of the delivery arm.”
Regarding the wafer’s transfer from the chuck of the intermediate chamber to the holding member, Ikeya clarifies that the intermediate chamber is structured similar to the heating chamber, which comprises a heat plate (110) and lift pins (132) which generate clearance between the wafer and heat plate so the holding member can bear the former from below (9, 16-22; Fig. 9). At this point, the examiner wishes to establish three facts: (1) the elevation of the wafer from the heat plate’s upper surface by the lift pins signifies that the “treatment” phase has terminated; (2) the wafer moves from the elevated lift pins (132) to the holding member (124) while it is within the confines of the intermediate chamber, as shown by Figure 9, and (3) the transfer robot’s heating coil activates as soon as the wafer is set on the holding member, per the quotation at the end of the above paragraph (11, 66ff). Taken together, these facts establish that Ikeya’s heater “begins to adjust the transfer robot temperature when the wafer is still in” the intermediate chamber, which may be arbitrarily taken as the claimed “first chamber.”
Consider Figure 20 of Ikeya once more and let us assume, in arguendo, that the termination of the “Intermediate Treatment” at 5:00 corresponds to the wafer’s exit from the intermediate chamber rather than the post-treatment act of separating the wafer from the heat plate via the lift pins, as was presumed above by condition (1). In this case, temperature adjustment of Ikeya’s holding member begins the instant after the wafer crosses the plane of the transfer port. Recall, Applicant’s claimed invention, at its limit, describes an embodiment where temperature adjustment initiates the instant before the wafer crosses the transfer port’s plane. At this point, it is clear that the only distinction between these two embodiments is a nanosecond differential concerning the initiation of the transfer robot’s temperature adjustment, i.e., the interval between the moment before the wafer crosses the plane of the transfer port and the moment after the wafer breaches the plane. Because this nanosecond delay of temperature adjustment does not appear materially significant in any operational sense, it cannot serve as grounds for a judgement of non-obviousness. Thus, regardless of the presumption underlying the termination of Ikeya’s intermediate treatment at 5:00, the prior art renders obvious the claimed limitations.
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.
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) because the claim limitations use generic placeholders – member, mechanism, and system, in this case – that are 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 limitations are:
The “holding member” of claims 1-2, 11-12, 18-19, and 21-24;
The “cooling mechanism” of claims 1, 3, 8-10, 18-22, and 24;
The “control system” of claims 1, 3, 18, 21, and 24.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The holding member (224) will be interpreted as a plate in accordance with paragraph [0047] of Applicant’s specification.
The cooling mechanism will be interpreted as cooling fluid line (404) in accordance with paragraph [0049].
The control system (248) will be interpreted as a memory and one of a CPU, multi-processor, distributed processing system, ASIC, or controllers in accordance with paragraph [0031] and [0035].
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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 them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 1-6, 8-10, 18-19, 21-22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeya, US 6,413,888, in view of Kuo et al., US 2023/0082785, and Kim et al., US 6,229,118.
Claims 1, 3-6, 25: Ikeya discloses a multi-chamber semiconductor processing system, comprising:
A plurality of chambers (310, 312) corresponding to a semiconductor process (Fig. 17);
A transfer chamber;
A transfer robot (320) in the transfer chamber and having a holding member (324) for holding the wafer (314);
Wherein the transfer robot transfers the wafer among the plurality of chambers (10, 40-55);
A first temperature sensor (372) mounted on the holding member and configured to detect a transfer robot temperature (Fig. 19);
A heater (388) and a cooling fluid line (370), i.e., the “cooling mechanism,” mounted on the transfer robot and configured to adjust the transfer robot temperature (11, 28-45).
Figure 20 maps an operational sequence by time and wafer temperature. At 5:00, an intermediate treatment terminates within the intermediate chamber, i.e., the first chamber, after which lift pins separate the wafer from the hot plate (Fig. 9). The moment the holding member receives the wafer from the hot plate, temperature adjustment begins: “Once the semiconductor wafer 314 is set on the delivery arm 324, the controller 334 starts operating the heating coil 388 to control the temperature of the delivery arm” (11, 66ff). Of course, the holding member is still within the confines of the first chamber at this stage, thereby satisfying the claim 1 requirement that the system “begin to adjust the transfer robot temperature when the wafer is still in a first chamber.”
As shown by Figure 17, Ikeya’s processing system arrays the plurality of chambers around a central transfer robot (320) which, in turn, traverses an arcuate path of constant radius to convey the wafer to each chamber. Alternative paradigms are known in the art, however. Kuo, for example, discloses a general use processing apparatus that is organized as a spoke-type cluster tool, where a plurality of chambers (140) surrounds a central transfer chamber (150) (Fig. 2). The transfer chamber interfaces with each chamber via a dedicated sleeve door (109) [0031]. Kuo designates chambers 140 for operation as heating and cooling chambers, respectively, which would be analogous to Ikeya’s heating (10) and cooling (12) chambers [0032]. The examiner understands the layouts of Ikeya’s Figure 6 and Kuo’s Figure 2 as being equivalent for the purpose of facilitating the efficient distribution of wafers to a series of processing stations, whereby the selection of either alternative would have been obvious over the other. As such, reconfiguring Ikeya’s apparatus in accordance with the spoke-type design would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Lastly, regarding the recitation of a “control system” in the final paragraph of claim 1, Ikeya provides a controller (34) to regulate the temperature adjust unit, but it is unclear if said controller comprises each of those features enumerated under the 112(f) definition of Applicant’s “control system.” Kim, too, controls the temperature of a transfer robot’s holding member in accordance with a set point established by the conditions of the impending process chamber (5, 55ff). In addition, the reference avails a programmable CPU (330) to execute these operations and relies upon a memory containing a process log to establish the necessary adjustment signals (5, 66 – 6, 20). Kim also situates temperature sensors (315) within the process chambers and electrically couples them to the control system (5, 66ff). It would have been obvious to integrate Kim’s control means within Ikeya’s system since applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 2: Tautologically, given that the holding member is a subcomponent of the transfer robot, the temperature of the former may be taken as the representative temperature of the latter.
Claim 8: This claim pertains to matters of intended use, whereby the prior art must merely demonstrate the structural capacity to reproduce the recited functions in order to satisfy the threshold for rejection, as 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). In this case, the operator can initiate a temperature adjustment toward the subsequent set point prior to the wafer’s egress from the corresponding chamber.
Claims 9-10: The temperature adjustment unit comprises a heater (388) and a cooling fluid line (370), i.e., the “cooling mechanism” (11, 39-45).
Claims 18, 21: Collectively, the rejections of claims 1, 3, and 7, above, address these limitations.
Claims 19, 22: The rejection of claim 9, above, addresses these limitations.
Claim 24: Ikeya discloses a third chamber (338) corresponding to a third semiconductor process, and the same control strategies already elaborated are similarly applied to this chamber (11, 57ff; Fig. 17).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeya in view of Kuo and Kim, and in further view of Okamura et al., US 2024/0222185, and Kondoh, US 2011/0178626.
Claim 11: Ikeya situates the temperature adjustment unit within the holding member rather than the body of the transfer robot. Okamura, though, describes another embodiment in which a coolant is fed through a fluid line (160) to circulate about the bearings of a transfer robot in order to cool the mechanism ([0048]; Fig. 3). Similarly, Kondoh embeds a plurality of heaters (61a-b) within with bearing of a transfer robot for purposes of heating ([0090]; Fig. 3). Given these disclosures, it would have been obvious to situate the temperature adjustment unit about the bearing of the robot body, as it has been held that rearranging the parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
Claim 12: Kondoh composes the robot with aluminum casings [0086]. It would have been obvious to avail this material to construct the transfer robot of the composite prior art apparatus since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125, USPQ 416).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeya in view of Kuo and Kim, and in further view of Kondoh.
As shown by Figure 17, it appears that the process chambers are disposed within the confines of the transfer chamber rather than “abutting” it, as this claim requires. Alternative configurations are known, however. Kondoh, for instance, situates a transfer robot (10b) within a mainframe (44), where the surrounding process chambers (45) abut the boundary of the main frame (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to organize a processing system in accordance with this paradigm, as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claims 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeya in view of Kuo and Kim, and in further view of Okamura and Kondoh.
The rejection of claim 11, above, substantially addresses these limitations.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Kim et al., US 6,229,118. Kim discloses a system comprising a transfer chamber (70) and a process chamber (55), where a transfer robot (10) conveys wafers to and from the latter (Fig. 2). In addition, Kim embeds a temperature adjustment unit (300) within the holding member of the robot in order to regulate wafer temperature (5, 10-15).
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