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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 22 January 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “there is no serious search or examination burden. Indeed, both claim 1 and 19 recite "[a] transfer apparatus comprising: a body[,] and a plurality of substrate supports inserted at least partially into the body, each of the plurality of substrate supports comprising: . . . silicon carbide (SiC)." For this reason, examination should encompass claims 1-20.” This is not found persuasive because moving out of the processing volume is only in Claims 19-20. There is no claim to the steps of moving a transfer apparatus along with heating a substrate in said processing volume in Claims 1-18.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 22 January 2026.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” “The present disclosure relates to,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FREERKS FREDERICK W et al. (EP1063683A2) (“Freerks”).
[AltContent: textbox (fin)][AltContent: textbox (inner segment)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
464
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1: a substrate (12) in relation to semiconductor manufacturing, the transfer apparatus comprising:
a body (para. [0001]/[0028]/[0029]-[0032]]; 30); and
a plurality of substrate supports (36a-36d) inserted at least partially into the body, each of the plurality of substrate supports comprising:
an inner segment (see FIG. 8 above, “inner segment”), and
one or more fins (see FIG. 8 above, “fin”) extending outwardly relative to the inner segment each of the inner segment and the one or more fins comprising silicon carbide (SiC) (para. [0036]);
Claim 2: wherein the body is a blade, and each of the inner segment and the one or more fins is formed of the SIC (FIG. 8; para. [0036]);
Claim 4: wherein the inner segment is ball shaped, and each of the one or more fins is cylindrical or rectangular in shape (para. [0032]; ball = spherical; cylindrical = convex);
Claim 6: wherein the inner segment is cylindrical in shape, and each of the one or more fins is cylindrical or rectangular in shape (para. [0032]; cylindrical = convex);
Claim 7: wherein the inner segment is semi-ball shaped and cylindrical in shape, and each of the one or more fins is cylindrical or rectangular in shape (para. [0032]; semi-ball = semi-spherical; cylindrical = convex);
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freerks in view of Parkhe et al. (US 8852348) (“Parkhe”). Freerks discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Freerks does not directly show:
Claim 3: wherein each of the inner segment and the one or more fins is formed of graphite coated with the SIC.
Parkhe shows a similar device having:
Claim 3: wherein each of the inner segment and the one or more fins is formed of graphite coated with the SIC (col. 9, lines 23-29);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a sealant against moisture and improving substrate processing performance (col. 8, lines 55-57). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Freerks as taught by Parkhe and include Parkhe’s similar device having:
Claim 3: wherein each of the inner segment and the one or more fins is formed of graphite coated with the SIC;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a sealant against moisture and improving substrate processing performance.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freerks in view of Greenberg et al. (US 9202738) (“Greenberg”). Freerks discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Freerks does not directly show:
Claim 5: wherein the inner segment is rectangular in shape, and each of the one or more fins is cylindrical or rectangular in shape.
Greenberg shows a similar device having:
Claim 5: wherein the inner segment is rectangular in shape, and each of the one or more fins is cylindrical or rectangular in shape (col. 5, lines 35-37);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of suitably holding the substrate in place (col. 3, lines 10-16; col. 5, lines 35-37). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Freerks as taught by Greenberg and include Greenberg’s similar device having:
Claim 5: wherein the inner segment is rectangular in shape, and each of the one or more fins is cylindrical or rectangular in shape;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of suitably holding the substrate in place.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freerks in view of Srivastava et al. (US 2022/0336248) (“Srivastava”). Freerks discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Freerks does not directly show:
Claim 8: one or more heat transfer elements embedded in the inner segment of at least one of the plurality of substrate supports.
Srivastava shows a similar device having:
Claim 8: one or more heat transfer elements embedded in the inner segment of at least one of the plurality of substrate supports (para. [0046]);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving green-to-green time of the transfer apparatus (para. [0026]/[0062]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Freerks as taught by Srivastava and include Srivastava’s similar device having:
Claim 8: one or more heat transfer elements embedded in the inner segment of at least one of the plurality of substrate supports;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving green-to-green time of the transfer apparatus.
Claim(s) 9-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freerks in view of Tsuji et al. (US 2015/0217456) (“Tsuji”). Freerks discloses:
Claim 9: a substrate (12) in relation to semiconductor manufacturing, the transfer apparatus comprising:
a body (para. [0001]/[0028]/[0029]-[0032]]; 30) comprising:
a wrist (para. [0028]), and
a plurality of arms defining a support face (FIG. 3-4,7; at least 30), the plurality of arms each having an arm thickness, and the plurality of arms are each formed of an arm material (FIG. 3-4; 2 has arms);
and a plurality of substrate supports (36a-36d) inserted at least partially into the support face of the body, each of the plurality of substrate supports formed of a support material that is different than the arm material (para. [0034]/[0036]; 30 and 36a-36d are capable of having different materials; 36a-36d is preferred to be 6061 aluminum in para. [0036]), and each of the plurality of substrate supports comprising:
an inner segment (see FIG. 8 above, “inner segment”), and
one or more fins (see FIG. 8 above, “fin”) extending outwardly relative to the inner segment, each of the one or more fins having a fin thickness that is a thickness ratio of the arm thickness (FIG. 4-7);
Claim 10: wherein the support material comprises silicon carbide (SiC) (FIG. 8; para. [0036]), and the arm material comprises quartz (SiO2) (para. [0039]);
Claim 11: wherein the wrist comprises a wrist ledge, each of the plurality of arms comprises an arm ledge, and each of the plurality of substrate supports is positioned inwardly of the wrist ledge and each arm ledge (edge of at least 30; FIG. 3-4,7; 32/34/etc.);
Claim 12: wherein the inner segment comprises:
a support portion on a first side of the one or more fins, the support portion extending past the support face (see FIG. 8 above, “inner segment” top portion); and
an insertion portion on a second side of the one or more fins, the insertion portion extending into a retention opening formed in one of the plurality of arms (portion/opening near leaders 29/38d in FIG. 8);
Claim 14: wherein the inner segment has a segment major dimension and each of the one or more fins has a fin major dimension, wherein the fin major dimension is larger than the segment major dimension (the fin is larger than the inner segment);
Claim 17: wherein the support material has a thermal conductivity that is at least 100 W/m*°K. (for SiC in Freerks = 3.6-4.9 W/cm*°C = 360-490 W/m*°K which is above 100 W/m*°K; see https://www.ioffe.ru/SVA/NSM/Semicond/SiC/thermal.html reference thereto);
Claim 18: wherein the support material has an absorptivity that absorbs at least 95% of light having a wavelength in the infrared (IR) range (for SiC in Freerks, see reference “Silicon‑based ultra‑broadband mid‑IR and LWIR near‑perfect metamaterial absorber” (see https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11082-024-06996-2 ) that discloses that SiC is capable of meeting the claimed absorptivity).
Freerks does not directly show:
Claim 9: the thickness ratio is 0.7 or less;
Claim 13: wherein the support portion extends past the support face by a gap, the gap is a gap ratio of the arm thickness, and the gap ratio is 0.3 or higher;
Claim 15: wherein the fin major dimension is a dimension ratio of the arm thickness, and the dimension ratio is 2.0 or higher;
Claim 16: wherein the dimension ratio is 4.0 or higher.
Tsuji shows a similar device having:
Claim 9: the thickness ratio is 0.7 or less (41a-41d; para. [0046]-[0047]; Fig. 3-4);
Claim 13: wherein the support portion extends past the support face by a gap, the gap is a gap ratio of the arm thickness, and the gap ratio is 0.3 or higher (3-10 mm or 5-7 mm);
Claim 15: wherein the fin major dimension is a dimension ratio of the arm thickness, and the dimension ratio is 2.0 or higher (3-10 mm or 5-7 mm);
Claim 16: wherein the dimension ratio is 4.0 or higher (3-10 mm or 5-7 mm);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the throughput of the substrate through the transfer apparatus by reducing transfer errors (para. [0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Freerks as taught by Tsuji and include Tsuji’s similar device having:
Claim 9: the thickness ratio is 0.7 or less;
Claim 13: wherein the support portion extends past the support face by a gap, the gap is a gap ratio of the arm thickness, and the gap ratio is 0.3 or higher;
Claim 15: wherein the fin major dimension is a dimension ratio of the arm thickness, and the dimension ratio is 2.0 or higher;
Claim 16: wherein the dimension ratio is 4.0 or higher;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the throughput of the substrate through the transfer apparatus by reducing transfer errors.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of copending Application No. 18/108,432 (reference application; US 2024/0274448). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the current application fit into (are broader than) Claim 8 of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2008/0105201 have supports 208/124.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gerald McClain whose telephone number is (571)272-7803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and at gerald.mcclain@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 (II)).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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.
/Gerald McClain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652