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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-4, drawn to a substrate preparation chamber, comprising: an enclosure; classified in H01L21/67196; or
II. Claims 5-13, drawn to an inkjet printing system, comprising: an inkjet printer disposed within a printing enclosure; and a substrate preparation chamber coupled to the printing enclosure, classified in B41J11/00; or
III. Claim 14-20, drawn to a method of processing a substrate, comprising: disposing the substrate on a rotatable substrate support of a substrate preparation chamber, classified in G03F7/162.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Inventions III and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the process can be operated by a different apparatus such as an apparatus without two substrate locations. Alternatively, the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process such as replacing the atmosphere with oxygen or a gas such as atmosphere from the outside (i.e. a non-iert gas atmosphere).
Inventions III and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the process can be operated by a different apparatus such as a substrate preparation chamber which does not include: a preparation chamber with two or more doors or a coating system including a curtain coater or an rotary atomizer. Alternatively, the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process such as replacing the atmosphere with a gas such as oxygen or atmosphere from the outside (i.e. a non-iert gas atmosphere).
Inventions II and I are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the combination (Invention II) in claim 5 does not require: a rotatable substrate support having two substrate locations disposed within the enclosure. The subcombination has separate utility such as in photoresist coating using a rotary atomizer or curtain coater.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because at least the following reason(s) apply: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, and the inventions require a different field of search for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Following a telephone conversation, Ron Embry elected Group II (claim 5-13) without traverse via email on March 14, 2025. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-4 and 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Confirmation of this election must be made in writing in response to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “atmosphere replacement system” in claims 5 and 9 and “second substrate preparation chamber comprising: a preparation enclosure with two or more doors; and a rotatable substrate support disposed within the preparation enclosure” in claim 7, “second substrate preparation chamber is stacked on the first substrate preparation chamber” in claims 8-9, “chamber is configured to deliver substrates to the substrate preparation chamber simultaneously” in claim 11, and “substrate support is configured to move linearly and to rotate simultaneously” in claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
In addition, the following omission was noted in one of the drawings: the substrate on the left in Fig. 2D.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 10, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites: the substrate preparation chamber is a first substrate preparation chamber, and further comprising a second substrate preparation chamber coupled to the printing enclosure, the second substrate preparation chamber comprising: a preparation enclosure with two or more doors; and a rotatable substrate support disposed within the preparation enclosure
A suggested revision is as follows:
“ the substrate preparation chamber comprises [[is]] a first substrate preparation chamber, and the substrate preparation chamber further comprising a second substrate preparation chamber coupled to the printing enclosure, the second substrate preparation chamber comprising: a second preparation enclosure with two or more doors; and a second rotatable substrate support disposed within the preparation enclosure.”
Claim 10 recites “an inkjet printer disposed within the printing enclosure”. This limitation already appears in claim 5 from which claim 10 depends A suggested revision is to delete this limitation.
Claim 13 recites “the substrate support”. A suggested revision is “the rotatable substrate support”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5-6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 9,505,245 to Kateeva (hereinafter Kateeva) and US 5,478,195 to Usami (hereinafter Usami).
Regarding claim 5, Kateeva teaches an inkjet printing system (Fig. 2B), comprising: an inkjet printer (printhead assembly 2500, Fig. 2B) disposed within a printing enclosure (portion of enclosure 1330 below printhead assembly 2500 and containing rail system 2705, Fig. 2B); and a substrate preparation chamber (portion of enclosure adjacent leftmost door and containing platform 2800A, portion of enclosure adjacent rightmost door and containing platform 2800B, Fig. 2B) coupled to the printing enclosure, the substrate preparation chamber comprising: a preparation enclosure (1330) with two or more doors (Fig. 2B). (See Kateeva, Abstract, Fig. 2B, col. 2, lines 35-40; col. 21, lines 49-67; col. 22, lines 5-59; col. 49, lines 56 to col. 50, lines 10.)
Kateeva does not explicitly teach a rotatable substrate support disposed within the preparation enclosure; and an atmosphere replacement system coupled to the preparation enclosure; wherein at least one of the doors is operable to place the preparation enclosure and the printing enclosure in fluid communication.
Usami is in the art of processing chambers.
Usami teaches a substrate preparation chamber (1, Fig. 1) coupled to the printing enclosure (152, Fig. 1), the substrate preparation chamber comprising: a preparation enclosure (1, Fig. 1) with two or more doors (11 & 142, Fig. 1), a rotatable substrate support disposed within the preparation enclosure (2, Fig. 1); and an atmosphere replacement system coupled to the preparation enclosure (Col. 5, lines. 6-9, “After the loading of cassettes through the gate valve 11 has been completed, the gate valve 11 is hermetically closed to permit the start of vacuum pumping of the entire loadlock chamber.”), wherein at least one of the doors is operable to place the preparation enclosure and the printing enclosure in fluid communication (door 142 is configured to place chambers 1 and 152 in fluid communication, Fig. 1.).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Kateeva to include a rotatable substrate support disposed within the preparation enclosure; and an atmosphere replacement system coupled to the preparation enclosure; wherein at least one of the doors is operable to place the preparation enclosure and the printing enclosure in fluid communication as taught by Usami, because it would provide a fully integrated vacuum system for the substrate preparation chamber to prevent debris contamination during the printing process which an ordinary would recognize would enable defects to be reduced and productivity improved. (See Usami, Abstract, Fig. 1, and col. 5, lines 6-9.)
Regarding claim 6, modified Kateeva discloses the inkjet printing system of claim 5, Kateeva ‘245 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the substrate preparation chamber (1) further comprises a linear actuator coupled to the rotatable substrate support.
Usami is in the art of processing chambers (Abstract) and teaches wherein the substrate preparation chamber further comprises a linear actuator coupled to the rotatable substrate support (71, 72, and Fig. 1.)
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 actuator as taught by Usami, because an ordinary artisan would recognize this would provide the advantage of allowing specific positioning of the substrate as needed. (See Usami, Abstract, Fig. 1, and col. 5, lines 6-9.)
Regarding claim 13, Kateeva discloses the inkjet printing system of claim 6, wherein the substrate support is configured to move linearly and rotate simultaneously, which can be mounted on linear rail motion system 2705 for positioning relative to first printhead assembly 2501. Similarly, various apparatuses housed within the second management system 2702 can mounted on a linear rail system 2706 for positioning relative to first printhead assembly 2502, as noted in Kateeva, the support can be placed inside and moved on liner rails. ( See Kateeva, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 5, lines. 6-9.)
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 9,505,245 to Kateeva (hereinafter Kateeva) and US 5,478,195 to Usami (hereinafter Usami) as applied to claim 6 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20170148651 to Kao et al (hereinafter Kao) .
Regarding claim 7, modified Kateeva discloses the inkjet printing system of claim 6 (1330, Fig. 2B), Kateeva fails to explicitly disclose the substrate preparation chamber is a first substrate preparation chamber, and further comprising a second substrate preparation chamber coupled to the printing enclosure.
Usami teaches disclose the substrate preparation chamber is a first substrate preparation chamber (1, Fig. 1), and further comprising a second substrate preparation (151) chamber coupled to the printing enclosure (152). (151, 152, & 153, Fig. 2). (See Usami, Abstract, Fig. 1, 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 substrate preparation chamber is a first substrate preparation chamber, and further comprising a second substrate preparation chamber coupled to the printing enclosure as taught by Usami, because this structure improves throughput efficiency by increasing the number of wafers that can be processed while having a single vacuum pumping of the load lock chamber. (See Usami, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 5-45; and col. 5, lines 6-9.)
Regarding claim 7, modified Kateeva discloses the inkjet printing system of claim 6 (1330, Fig. 2B), Kateeva fails to explicitly disclose the second substrate preparation chamber comprising: a preparation enclosure with two or more doors; and a rotatable substrate support disposed within the preparation enclosure.
Kao teaches a semiconductor processing station including a first platform, a second platform, vacuum tunnel, first load lock, second load lock having a plurality of chambers.
Kao teaches the second substrate preparation chamber (enclosure including 126b) comprising: a preparation enclosure with two or more doors; and a rotatable substrate support (126b) disposed within the preparation enclosure. (See Kao, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, and paragraphs 25, 28-32.) Examiner is considering a robot which is capable of turning (i.e. rotating) to move the substrate in a number of different directions (range of motion) to be equivalent to a rotatable substrate support.
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 second substrate preparation chamber comprising: a preparation enclosure with two or more doors; and a rotatable substrate support disposed within the preparation enclosure, because Kao teaches this structure improves throughput efficiency (wafer per hour) by increasing the number of processing chambers and lower the individual chamber down time. (See Kao, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, and paragraphs 3, 25-26, 28-32 and 35.)
Regarding claim 10, modified Kateeva discloses an inkjet printer (printhead assembly 2500, Fig. 2B) disposed within the printing enclosure and a substrate handler (2610) disposed within the printing enclosure, the substrate handler comprising a linear actuator (2620) and configured to retrieve a substrate from the substrate preparation chamber (portion of enclosure adjacent leftmost door and containing platform 2800A, portion of enclosure adjacent rightmost door and containing platform 2800B, Fig. 2B). (See Kateeva, Abstract, Fig. 2B, col. 2, lines 35-40; col. 21, lines 49-67; col. 22, lines 5-59; col. 49, lines 56 to col. 50, lines 10.)
Regarding claim 10, Kateeva fails to explicitly disclose the substrate handler includes a rotary actuator.
Kao teaches the substrate handler (126a, 126b) includes a rotary actuator. (See Kao, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, and paragraphs 25, 28-32.) Examiner is considering a robot which is capable of turning (i.e. rotating) to move the substrate in a number of different directions (range of motion) to be equivalent to a substrate handler including a rotary actuator.
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 substrate handler includes a rotary actuator; because Kao teaches this structure improves throughput efficiency (wafer per hour) by increasing the number of processing chambers and lower the individual chamber down time. (See Kao, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, and paragraphs 3, 25-26, 28-32 and 35.)
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 9,505,245 to Kateeva (hereinafter Kateeva) and US 5,478,195 to Usami (hereinafter Usami) as applied to claim 6 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20170148651 to Kao et al (hereinafter Kao) as applied to claim 7 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 2010015190A1 to Britcher et al (hereinafter Britcher).
Regarding claim 8, Kateeva fails to explicitly disclose the second substrate preparation chamber is stacked on the first substrate preparation chamber.
Britcher is directed to a substrate processing apparatus.
Britcher teaches vertically stacked processing units. (See Britcher, Abstract, paragraphs 36, 39; and Figs. 3-4.)
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 second substrate preparation chamber is stacked on the first substrate preparation chamber; because Britcher teaches this structure allows reduction of the tool footprint and amount of ancillary equipment needed. (See Britcher, Abstract, paragraphs 36, 39; and Figs. 1-8.)
Regarding claim 9, Kateeva fails to explicitly disclose the preparation enclosure of the second substrate preparation chamber is coupled to the atmosphere replacement system.
Britcher teaches the preparation enclosure of the second substrate preparation chamber is coupled to the atmosphere replacement system (exhaust assembly). (See Britcher, Abstract, paragraphs 56, 58-60 and Figs. 3-4.)
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 preparation enclosure of the second substrate preparation chamber is coupled to the atmosphere replacement system; because Britcher teaches this structure ensures stable and repeatable exhaust characteristics across all the substrate processing stations. (See Britcher, Abstract, paragraphs 36, 39; 56, 58-60 and Figs. 3-4.)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 9,505,245 to Kateeva (hereinafter Kateeva) and US 5,478,195 to Usami (hereinafter Usami) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20170148651 to Kao et al (hereinafter Kao) 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).
Regarding claim 11, Kateeva fails to explicitly disclose a substrate delivery chamber configured to deliver two substrates to the substrate preparation chamber simultaneously.
Blank is directed to methods, systems, and apparatuses for high throughput substrate transfer.
Blank teaches a substrate delivery chamber (chamber including 332 and 336 in Fig. 3C) configured to deliver two substrates (335, 156) to the substrate preparation chamber simultaneously. (See Blank, Abstract, col. 4, lines 3-43; col. 5, lines 2-46; and Figs. 1A-3F.)
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 second substrate preparation chamber is stacked on the first substrate preparation chamber; because Blank teaches this structure allows overall throughput to be improved. (See Blank, Abstract, col. 3, lines 30-58; col. 8, lines 43-67; col. 5, lines 2-46; and Figs. 1A-3F.)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 9,505,245 to Kateeva (hereinafter Kateeva) and US 5,478,195 to Usami (hereinafter Usami) and 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).
Regarding claim 12, Kateeva fails to explicitly disclose the substrate delivery chamber is configured to deliver substrates to the substrate preparation chamber in a first orientation and the substrate handler is configured to retrieve a substrate from the substrate preparation chamber in a second orientation different from the first orientation.
Rick is directed to a system for application of thin layer onto substrate.
Rick teaches the substrate delivery chamber (handling chamber) is configured to deliver substrates to the substrate preparation chamber in a first orientation and the substrate handler is configured to retrieve a substrate from the substrate preparation chamber in a second orientation (rotary angle of 90 o ) different from the first orientation. (See Rick, Abstract, paragraphs 2-4, 8-10, 21-26, 34, 37-42, 44 and Figs. 1-4.)
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 substrate delivery chamber is configured to deliver substrates to the substrate preparation chamber in a first orientation and the substrate handler is configured to retrieve a substrate from the substrate preparation chamber in a second orientation different from the first orientation; because Rick teaches this structure allows a compact design which enables integration into existing manufacturing systems for continuous processing. (See Rick, Abstract, paragraphs 2-4, 8-10, 21-26, 34, 37-42, 44 and Figs. 1-4.)
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