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 .
This office action is a response to the amendment filed on 11/11/2025.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trussell et al. (PGPub 2017/0110351 A1) in view of Chen (PGPub 2001/0002523 A1).
Trussell et al. teach a process for arranging a substrate processing tool on a pedestal within a semiconductor fabrication room, wherein the pedestal includes a plurality of pedestal plates (116, Fig. 1A) supported by a pedestal frame including a plurality of stanchions (118, Fig. 1A), the method comprising: determining, inherently, dimensions of the pedestal plates; determining, inherently, locations of installation features of the pedestal plates in accordance with components of the substrate processing tool (100, 108, Fig. 1A-1C, paragraphs [0073]-[0075]); orienting the at least one pedestal plate (2, 3, 4) with the at least one alignment feature (31) using an overhead transport system (not shown) as shown in Figs. 8-9; installing the pedestal frame on a subfloor (120) of the semiconductor fabrication room as shown in Fig. 1A, wherein the stanchions of the pedestal frame are positioned such that a weight distribution of the pedestal frame on the subfloor is different from a weight distribution of the substrate processing tool as shown in Fig. 1C; and installing the pedestal plates on the pedestal frame as shown in Figs. 1A-1C.
However, Trussell et al. silent machining installation features in the pedestal plates based on the determined locations, and marking at least one of the pedestal plates with at least one alignment feature. Chen teaches a process of arranging a pedestal (2, 3, 4) on a frame including a plurality of stanchions (5) as shown in Fig. 8, wherein installation features, (such as at least one access hole (8), as per claim 4) are formed in the pedestal plates based on determined locations and providing at least one of the pedestal plates with at least one alignment feature, such as an axis (as per claim 5) for placing the pedestal plates in accordance with the installation features on the frame as shown in Figs. 8-9 (paragraphs [0022]-[0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify a process for arranging a substrate processing tool on a pedestal within a semiconductor fabrication room of Trussell et al. by forming installation features in the pedestal plates and at least one alignment feature as taught by Chen in order to install the pedestal plates on the frame in accordance with the installation features in the pedestal plates and the at least one alignment feature.
Re. claim 2: Trussell et al. also teach that the substrate processing tool is installed on the pedestal plates as shown in Figs. 1A-1C.
Re. claim 3: Trussell et al. also teach that an overall footprint of the pedestal is greater than an overall footprint of the substrate processing tool as shown in Figs. 1A-1C.
Re. claim 9: Chen also shows that he at least one of the pedestal plates (2) is installed with the at least one alignment feature (31, the way of tile form, X-Y axes) and remaining ones of the pedestal plates (3, 4) are installed based on the at least one alignment feature as shown in Figs. 8-9.
Re. claim 11: Trussell et al. also teach that a plurality of the substrate processing tools is installed on the pedestal plates as shown in Figs. 1B-1C.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to disclose the claimed invention such as orienting the at least one pedestal plate with the at least one alignment feature using an overhead transport system. Applicant argues that the amended claim specifies how the overhead transport system operates (orienting the at least one of the pedestal plates), and clarifies how the plates are oriented in a specific manner (orienting the at least one of the pedestal plates with the at least one alignment features). Examiner traverses the argument. According to Figs. 8-9 of Chen, the pedestal plates (3, 4) with the at least one alignment feature are oriented and placed the plates on the pedestal frame including a plurality of stanchions. Even though Chen silent the overhead transport system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected to orient (such as holding, moving and placing) the plates above the pedestal frame including a plurality of stanchions on the floor. Also, there is no specific structural definition what the overhead transport system is. The examiner asserts that the claims have been given their broadest reasonable interpretation, without reading limitations from the specification into the claims. In re Zletz, 893 F. 2d 319, 312-322, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Therefore, the overhead transport system can be any tool, device, mechanism or hand to move the plates above the pedestal frame including a plurality of stanchions on the floor. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable rangers involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (il-A). The applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. Therefore, examiner believes that the prior art of record, Chen, teaches all limitations as set forth above and examiner maintains his rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 PAUL D KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:00 AM-2:00 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, Aneeta Yodichkas can be reached at 571-272-9773. 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.
/PAUL D KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729