DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on May 18, 2026. Claims 1, 3-4, 9-12, 18, 20-21, and 24 are amended.
The applicant contends that the cited prior art does not disclose the new material presently recited by independent claims 1, 18, and 21 – namely, a heating and cooling mechanism “mounted on the bearing” of the transfer robot. With regard to the primary reference, Ikeya, Figure 19 shows the heating and cooling mechanism (370, 388) disposed within the holding member, not the bearing (pp. 9-10).
In response, the examiner accepts this characterization and has withdrawn the outstanding 103 rejections. Subsequent further search, new rejections have been elaborated below.
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, and 18-24;
The “cooling mechanism” of claims 1, 3, 8-10, 18-22, and 24;
The “control system” of claims 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 1-3, 8-10, 12, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosek et al., US 2021/0370528, in view of Kuo et al., US 2023/0082785, and Ikeya, US 6,413,888.
Claims 1, 25: Hosek discloses a transfer robot configured to transfer a wafer, the robot comprising a plate (70), i.e., the “holding member,” capable of holding a wafer (72), a bearing (12), and two rods (66, 68) connecting the bearing to the holding member ([0032, 0038]; Figs. 1-2). The robot further comprises a cooling fluid line (58, 60), i.e., the “cooling mechanism,” mounted on the bearing and configured to adjust the robot’s temperature [0034-36]. As elaborated by paragraphs [0104-0107], heat conducts through each of the bearing, rods, and holding member; accordingly, by availing the same pathway of thermal conduction, regulating the bearing’s temperature via the cooling mechanism will necessarily alter the temperature of the rods and holding member.
The examiner observes that Hosek’s invention is narrowly directed to the transfer robot and is, therefore, silent concerning external structures like chambers. In supplementation, Kuo 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) containing a transfer robot ([0033]; Fig. 2). The transfer chamber, in turn, interfaces with each chamber via a dedicated sleeve door (109) [0031]. It would have been obvious to integrate Hosek’s transfer robot within a transfer chamber like that disclosed by Kuo to achieve the predictable result of conveying a wafer to a process chamber.
Given this composite structure, the operator can regulate the transfer sequences in any manner compatible with the structural capacity of the apparatus – it has been held that a recitation drawn to the intended manner of employing a claimed apparatus does not differentiate said apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)). With regard to the penultimate paragraph of claim 1, the operator can initiate temperature adjustment of the robot via the cooling mechanism when a given wafer is within the confines of a chamber that may arbitrarily be named “first chamber.”
Lastly, Hosek’s transfer robot only comprises a cooling mechanism and lacks the claimed feature of a “heater.” Figure 19 of Ikeya depicts a transfer robot containing both a heater (388) and a cooling fluid line (370), as well as a first temperature sensor (372) mounted on a holding member (324) (11, 28-45). Ikeya’s system comprises heating and cooling chambers, requiring mechanisms to both raise and lower temperature. Critically, Kuo’s system, within which Hosek’s transfer robot has been embedded, also includes heating and cooling chambers (140) [0032]. As such, it would have been obvious to integrate a heater within Hosek’s transfer robot in order to pre-condition the wafer prior to its introduction to the heating chamber.
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 3: Hosek provides a processor (18) having both memory and software, i.e., the “control system,” configured to generate a temperature adjustment signal [0031].
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, 12: Hosek forms the transfer robot of aluminum or stainless steel [0052].
Claim 10: Hosek’s cooling fluid line forms a circuitous path within the bearing, which the examiner understands to read upon “winding the bearing.”
Claims 4-6, 11, and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosek in view of Kuo and Ikeya, and in further view of Kim et al., US 6,229,118.
Claims 4-6, 11, 21-22: Hosek’s control system is not explicitly rely upon a “process log.” Kim, though, 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 these aspects of Kim’s control means within Hosek’s control system, since applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claims 18-19: Collectively, the rejections of claims 1 and 4-6 address these limitations.
Claims 20, 23: Collectively, the rejections of claims 1 and 9 address 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).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosek in view of Kuo and Ikeya, and in further view of Kondoh, US 2011/0178626.
As shown by Figure 17 of Ikeya, 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.
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).
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
Prosecution Insights