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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on May 26, 2026 was received and has been entered. Claims 21-22 were amended. Claims 1-20 and 24-34 were cancelled. Claims 21-23 are in the application and pending examination. Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The previous objection to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a) is maintained.
In addition, the following omission was noted in one of the drawings: the substrate on the left in Fig. 2D based on paragraphs 21 and 24 of the printed publication.
Claim Objections
The previous objection to claims 5, 24, and 31-32 is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claims 5, 24, and 31-32.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150314325 A1 to Ko et al (hereinafter Ko) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20170148651 A1 to Kao (hereinafter Kao) and US Pat. Num. 5,037,676 A1 to Petropoulos (hereinafter Petropoulos) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 5.
The previous rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150314325 A1 to Ko et al (hereinafter Ko) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20170148651 A1 to Kao (hereinafter Kao) and US Pat. Num. 5,037,676 A1 to Petropoulos (hereinafter Petropoulos) as applied to claim 5 in view of US 5,478,195 to Usami (hereinafter Usami) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 6.
The previous rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150314325 A1 to Ko et al (hereinafter Ko) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20170148651 A1 to Kao (hereinafter Kao) and US Pat. Num. 5,037,676 A1 to Petropoulos (hereinafter Petropoulos) in view of US 5,478,195 to Usami (hereinafter Usami) as applied to claim 5 in view of US Pat. Num. 9,505,245 to Kateeva (hereinafter Kateeva) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 13.
The previous rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150314325 A1 to Ko et al (hereinafter Ko) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20170148651 A1 to Kao (hereinafter Kao) and US Pat. Num. 5,037,676 A1 to Petropoulos (hereinafter Petropoulos) in view of US 5,478,195 to Usami (hereinafter Usami) as applied to claim 6 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 9,505,245 to Kateeva (hereinafter Kateeva) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 10.
The previous rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150314325 A1 to Ko et al (hereinafter Ko) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20170148651 A1 to Kao (hereinafter Kao) and US Pat. Num. 5,037,676 A1 to Petropoulos (hereinafter Petropoulos) in view of US 5,478,195 to Usami (hereinafter Usami) and US Pat. Num. 9,505,245 to Kateeva (hereinafter Kateeva) as applied to claim 10 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. US Pat. Num. 8,430,620 to Rich Blank (hereinafter Blank) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 11.
The previous rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150314325 A1 to Ko et al (hereinafter Ko) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20170148651 A1 to Kao (hereinafter Kao) and US Pat. Num. 5,037,676 A1 to Petropoulos (hereinafter Petropoulos) in view of US 5,478,195 to Usami (hereinafter Usami) and US Pat. Num. 9,505,245 to Kateeva (hereinafter Kateeva) and US Pat. Pub. No. US Pat. Num. 8,430,620 to Rich Blank (hereinafter Blank) as applied to claim 11 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20020037368 A1 to Rick et al (hereinafter Rick) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 12.
The previous rejection of claims 31-32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150314325 A1 to Ko et al (hereinafter Ko) and US Pat. Num. 5,037,676 A1 to Petropoulos (hereinafter Petropoulos) in view of US 5,478,195 to Usami (hereinafter Usami) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claims 31-32.
The previous rejection of claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150314325 A1 to Ko et al (hereinafter Ko) and US Pat. Num. 5,037,676 A1 to Petropoulos (hereinafter Petropoulos) in view of US 5,478,195 to Usami (hereinafter Usami) as applied to claim 31 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20170253968 A1 to Yahata (hereinafter Yahata) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 33.
The previous rejection of claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150314325 A1 to Ko et al (hereinafter Ko) and US Pat. Num. 5,037,676 A1 to Petropoulos (hereinafter Petropoulos) in view of US 5,478,195 to Usami (hereinafter Usami) as applied to claim 31 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20170253968 A1 to Yahata (hereinafter Yahata) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 33.
The previous rejection of claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150314325 A1 to Ko et al (hereinafter Ko) and US Pat. Num. 5,037,676 A1 to Petropoulos (hereinafter Petropoulos) in view of US 5,478,195 to Usami (hereinafter Usami) as applied to claim 31 in view of US Pat. Num. 9,505,245 to Kateeva (hereinafter Kateeva) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 34.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150314325 A1 to Ko et al (hereinafter Ko) and US 5,478,195 to Usami (hereinafter Usami) and US Pat. Num. 5,037,676 A1 to Petropoulos (hereinafter Petropoulos).
Regarding claim 21, Ko teaches an inkjet printing system ((2000A, 2000B) in Fig. 2 :2600A, 2600B), comprising: an inkjet printer (2000A, 2000B) and a substrate preparation chamber (1400B) coupled to the inkjet printer (2000A, 2000B) , the substrate preparation chamber comprising: first door (gate valve between 1400B and 2600A) opposite from second door (gate valve between 1400B and 2600B) and wherein at least one of the first(gate valve between 1400B and 2600A) and second doors is operable to place the substrate preparation chamber and the printing enclosure in fluid communication. (See Ko, Abstract, Fig. 1-4, paragraphs 39, 41-43, 45, 52-55, 57-61, 63.)
Ko does not explicitly teach a rotatable substrate support disposed within an interior of the substrate preparation enclosure, the rotatable substrate support having two substrate locations.
Usami teaches a rotatable, substrate support (2) disposed within an interior of the substrate preparation enclosure, the rotatable substrate support having two substrate locations (101, 104). (See Usami, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 47-67, and col. 5, lines 6-9.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a rotatable, substrate support disposed within an interior of the substrate preparation enclosure, the rotatable substrate support having two substrate locations, because an ordinary artisan would recognize this would allow the cassettes to be maintained at the desired position. (See Usami, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 47-67, and col. 5, lines 6-9.)
Ko does not explicitly teach a source of atmospheric gases fluidly coupled to the interior.
Petropoulos teaches an efficient method and modular apparatus for coating substrates by supporting the substrates. ( See Petropoulos, Abstract, col. 1, lines 11-17.)
Petropoulos teaches a source of atmospheric gases fluidly coupled to the interior using an inlet line (340) including a nitrogen gas supply (346). ( See Petropoulos, Abstract, col. 1, lines 11-17.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a source of atmospheric gases fluidly coupled to the interior, because Petropoulos this structure is useful to reduce oxygen concentration to reduce potential for damage. ( See Petropoulos, Abstract, col. 1, lines 11-17.)
Regarding claim 21, Ko does not explicitly teach the rotatable substrate support comprises a plurality of edge contact bodies.
Usami teaches the rotatable substrate support comprises a plurality of edge contact bodies (cassette) that provide vertical and lateral support for two substrates. (See Usami, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 47-67, and col. 5, lines 6-9.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the rotatable substrate support comprises a plurality of edge contact bodies, because Usami teaches structure of the cassette would enable the wafers to be transported. (See Usami, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 47-67, and col. 5, lines 6-9.)
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150314325 A1 to Ko et al (hereinafter Ko) and US 5,478,195 to Usami (hereinafter Usami) and US Pat. Num. 5,037,676 A1 to Petropoulos (hereinafter Petropoulos) and US Pat. Num. 5,749,469 to Randall S. Williams (hereinafter Williams).
Regarding claim 21, Ko teaches an inkjet printing system ((2000A, 2000B) in Fig. 2 :2600A, 2600B), comprising: an inkjet printer (2000A, 2000B) and a substrate preparation chamber (1400B) coupled to the inkjet printer (2000A, 2000B) , the substrate preparation chamber comprising: first door (gate valve between 1400B and 2600A) opposite from second door (gate valve between 1400B and 2600B) and wherein at least one of the first(gate valve between 1400B and 2600A) and second doors is operable to place the substrate preparation chamber and the printing enclosure in fluid communication. (See Ko, Abstract, Fig. 1-4, paragraphs 39, 41-43, 45, 52-55, 57-61, 63.)
Ko does not explicitly teach a rotatable substrate support disposed within an interior of the substrate preparation enclosure, the rotatable substrate support having two substrate locations.
Usami teaches a rotatable, substrate support (2) disposed within an interior of the substrate preparation enclosure, the rotatable substrate support having two substrate locations (101, 104). (See Usami, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 47-67, and col. 5, lines 6-9.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a rotatable, substrate support disposed within an interior of the substrate preparation enclosure, the rotatable substrate support having two substrate locations, because an ordinary artisan would recognize this would allow the cassettes to be maintained at the desired position. (See Usami, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 47-67, and col. 5, lines 6-9.)
Ko does not explicitly teach a source of atmospheric gases fluidly coupled to the interior.
Petropoulos teaches an efficient method and modular apparatus for coating substrates by supporting the substrates. ( See Petropoulos, Abstract, col. 1, lines 11-17.)
Petropoulos teaches a source of atmospheric gases fluidly coupled to the interior using an inlet line (340) including a nitrogen gas supply (346). ( See Petropoulos, Abstract, col. 1, lines 11-17.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a source of atmospheric gases fluidly coupled to the interior, because Petropoulos this structure is useful to reduce oxygen concentration to reduce potential for damage. ( See Petropoulos, Abstract, col. 1, lines 11-17.)
Regarding claim 21, Ko does not explicitly teach the rotatable substrate support comprises a plurality of edge contact bodies.
Williams is directed to a wafer carrier.
Williams teaches the rotatable substrate support comprises a plurality of edge contact bodies (93, 94). (See Williams, Abstract, Fig.1, 8-9, col. 2, lines 24-43 and col. 4, lines 21-35.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the rotatable substrate support comprises a plurality of edge contact bodies with a reasonable expectation of success, because Williams teaches this is known structure suitable for transporting wafers. (See Williams, Abstract, Fig.1, 8-9, col. 2, lines 24-43 and col. 4, lines 21-35.)
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150314325 A1 to Ko et al (hereinafter Ko) and US Pat. Num. 5,037,676 A1 to Petropoulos (hereinafter Petropoulos) in view of US 5,478,195 to Usami (hereinafter Usami) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20170148651 A1 to Kao (hereinafter Kao).
Regarding claim 22, Ko teaches an inkjet printing system ((2000A, 2000B) in Fig. 2 :2600A, 2600B), comprising: an inkjet printer (2000A, 2000B) and a substrate preparation chamber (1400B) coupled to the inkjet printer (2000A, 2000B) , the substrate preparation chamber comprising: first door (gate valve between 1400B and 2600A) opposite from second door (gate valve between 1400B and 2600B) and wherein at least one of the first(gate valve between 1400B and 2600A) and second doors is operable to place the substrate preparation chamber and the printing enclosure in fluid communication. (See Ko, Abstract, Fig. 1-4, paragraphs 39, 41-43, 45, 52-55, 57-61, 63.)
Ko does not explicitly teach a rotatable substrate support disposed within an interior of the substrate preparation enclosure, the rotatable substrate support having two substrate locations.
Usami teaches a rotatable, substrate support (2) disposed within an interior of the substrate preparation enclosure, the rotatable substrate support having two substrate locations (101, 104). (See Usami, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 47-67, and col. 5, lines 6-9.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a rotatable, substrate support disposed within an interior of the substrate preparation enclosure, the rotatable substrate support having two substrate locations, because an ordinary artisan would recognize this would allow the cassettes to be maintained at the desired position. (See Usami, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 47-67, and col. 5, lines 6-9.)
Ko does not explicitly teach a source of atmospheric gases fluidly coupled to the interior.
Petropoulos teaches an efficient method and modular apparatus for coating substrates by supporting the substrates. ( See Petropoulos, Abstract, col. 1, lines 11-17.)
Petropoulos teaches a source of atmospheric gases fluidly coupled to the interior using an inlet line (340) including a nitrogen gas supply (346). ( See Petropoulos, Abstract, col. 1, lines 11-17.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a source of atmospheric gases fluidly coupled to the interior, because Petropoulos this structure is useful to reduce oxygen concentration to reduce potential for damage. ( See Petropoulos, Abstract, col. 1, lines 11-17.)
Regarding claim 22, Ko does not explicitly teach the rotatable substrate support comprises a plurality of edge contact bodies.
Usami teaches the rotatable substrate support comprises a plurality of edge contact bodies (cassette) that provide vertical and lateral support for two substrates. (See Usami, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 47-67, and col. 5, lines 6-9.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the rotatable substrate support comprises a plurality of edge contact bodies, because Usami teaches structure of the cassette would enable the wafers to be transported. (See Usami, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 47-67, and col. 5, lines 6-9.)
Regarding claim 22, Ko does not explicitly teach the rotatable substrate support comprises a central portion and a plurality of arms extending outward from the central portion.
Kao teaches a rotatable substrate support (146a) disposed within an interior of the substrate preparation enclosure, the rotatable substrate support having two substrate locations and the rotatable substrate support comprises a central portion and a plurality of arms extending outward from the central portion to provide vertical and lateral support for two substrates. (See Kao, Abstract, Fig.1, and paragraphs 25, and 28-29.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the rotatable substrate support comprises a central portion and a plurality of arms extending outward from the central portion to provide vertical and lateral support for two substrates, as an art recognized equivalent for transporting substates. (See Kao, Abstract, Fig.1, and paragraphs 25, and 28-29.)
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150314325 A1 to Ko et al (hereinafter Ko) and US Pat. Num. 5,037,676 A1 to Petropoulos (hereinafter Petropoulos) in view of US 5,478,195 to Usami (hereinafter Usami) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20170148651 A1 to Kao (hereinafter Kao) as applied to claim 22 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20230207367 A1 to Taniyama et al (hereinafter Taniyama).
Regarding claim 23, Ko does not explicitly teach wherein each arm has an edge contact body at an end of the arm.
Taniyama is directed to a wafer transfer mechanism.
Taniyama teaches each arm has an edge contact body (wafer gripping portions) at an end (tips) of the arm. (See Taniyama, Abstract, Fig.1, and paragraphs 43 and 61.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have each arm has an edge contact body at an end of the arm with a reasonableexpectation of success, because Taniyama teaches this is known structure suitable for transporting wafers. (See Taniyama, Abstract, Figs.1-2, and paragraphs 43 and 61.)
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150314325 A1 to Ko et al (hereinafter Ko) and US Pat. Num. 5,037,676 A1 to Petropoulos (hereinafter Petropoulos) in view of US 5,478,195 to Usami (hereinafter Usami) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20170148651 A1 to Kao (hereinafter Kao) as applied to claim 22 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,749,469 to Randall S. Williams (hereinafter Williams) .
Regarding claim 23, Ko does not explicitly teach wherein each arm has an edge contact body at an end of the arm.
Williams is directed to a wafer carrier.
Williams teaches each arm has an edge contact body (93, 94) at an end of the arm (93.1, 93.2). (See Williams, Abstract, Fig.1, 8-9, col. 2, lines 24-43 and col. 4, lines 21-35.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have each arm has an edge contact body at an end of the arm with a reasonableexpectation of success, because Williams teaches this is known structure suitable for transporting wafers. (See Williams, Abstract, Fig.1, 8-9, col. 2, lines 24-43 and col. 4, lines 21-35.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights