DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on August 14, 2025. Claims 21 and 23-26 are amended.
The applicant contends that Ishizawa does not disclose the new material presently recited by independent claim 21 – namely, the feature of “first support elements” to support a workpiece and “second support elements” to support a focus ring (pp. 6-7).
In response, the examiner accepts this characterization and has withdrawn the outstanding rejections. Subsequent further consideration, new rejections have been applied below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. The final paragraph of claim 21 has been amended to clarify that the workpieces have a “smaller diameter” than that of the focus rings. Claim 23, however, stipulates that the “focus rings hav[e] a larger diameter than the workpiece,” whereby this statement appears commensurate in scope with the excerpt from claim 21. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al., US 2018/0108548, in view of Genetti et al., US 2017/0117172, and Ishizawa, US 2018/0019107.
Claims 21, 23: Yang discloses a system for processing workpieces, comprising (Fig. 4):
A front end portion (112) configured to be maintained at atmospheric pressure [0046];
A loadlock chamber (114) disposed between the front end portion and a vacuum portion;
A transfer chamber (115) disposed in the vacuum portion, including:
A transfer position (162) having a workpiece column (160) capable of supporting workpieces (163) and focus rings in a stacked arrangement on a plurality of shelves (161) ([0069-70], Fig. 5);
A workpiece handling robot (150) disposed in the transfer chamber and configured to convey workpieces between the process chambers;
Wherein the handling robot includes an end effector (152) [0089];
A first process chamber (120);
A second process chamber (130) disposed opposite the first process chamber;
A third process chamber (170) disposed adjacent to the first process chamber;
A fourth process chamber (180) disposed adjacent to the second process chamber and opposite the third process chamber;
Wherein each process chamber is disposed in the vacuum portion and contains two processing stations (122, 124) [0052].
Although Yang’s system is directed to plasma processing, the reference is silent regarding the matter of focus rings. By definition, then, Yang does not address the matter of a “storage chamber configured to store…focus rings,” as claim 21 requires. In supplementation, Genetti discloses a plasma cluster tool of analogous architecture to Yang’s, where focus rings are utilized to regulate plasma uniformity across the substrate [0050-51]. Because of the corrosive environment endemic to plasma processing, the focus rings must be frequently replaced, warranting the inclusion of a storage chamber (108) appended directly to the transfer chamber ([0047]; Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to incorporate a focus ring storage chamber within Yang’s apparatus to facilitate the efficient replacement of consumed rings.
Genetti also addresses the matter of an end effector designed to bear both a workpiece and a focus ring. With reference to Figures 6B-C, the end effector comprises first support elements (708c, 708d) configured to support a workpiece and second support elements (708a, 708b) configured to support a focus ring [0101, 0104]. As shown by Figure 10D, the diameter of the workpiece is smaller than that of the focus ring [0102-0103]. Subsequent the integration of focus rings within Yang for reasons of plasma control, it would have been obvious to redesign the end effector in accordance with Genetti’s paradigm to enable the conveyance of said focus rings.
Lastly, it is not clear if Genetti avails a “controller to adjust control motion in real time” of the end effector “based…on data from…sensors.” This control technique is known, however, as Ishizawa attests. As shown by Figure 7, Ishizawa disposes optical sensors (S11) in a vacuum transfer chamber (TM) to adjust the motion of an end effector in real time in order to ensure proper workpiece alignment preceding ingress to a process chamber (PM1) [0095]. The sensor is coupled to a controller (CU) which adjusts the end effector’s position in view of the sensor data [0083]. It would have been obvious to integrate position sensors within the prior art system to achieve the predictable result of ensuring alignment.
Claim 24: Figure 11 of Genetti depicts the storage chamber (108) as comprising shelves (1206) for new focus rings and shelves (1208) for used focus rings [0140].
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Ishizawa and Genetti, and in further view of Blum et al., US 5,909,994.
Genetti, above, describes an exemplary storage chamber for replaceable parts such as focus rings. The reference, though, does not address the claimed feature of an elevator. In supplementation, Blum discloses a storage chamber having a plurality of vertically-oriented shelves for holding replaceable parts like workpieces (Figs. 9-10). In order to align each part with the slot through which the end effector moves, Blum renders the shelves vertically moveable (6, 3-11). Similarly, it would have been obvious to incorporate an elevator within Genetti’s storage chamber to facilitate the alignment of each part with the handling robot.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Ishizawa and Genetti, and in further view of Hiroki, US 6,709,521.
Genetti’s storage chamber (108) is vacuum capable, and its gate valve permits access to the workpiece robot [0047]. The reference is silent regarding the claimed feature of access doors opening to the “atmospheric surrounding environment.” Hiroki, though, discloses a process chamber comprising two maintenance doors (21, 22) each dedicated to a specific purpose (5, 23-29). It would have been obvious to outfit Genetti’s storage chamber with at least one access door to facilitate necessary forms of maintenance and part replacement.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Heyder et al., US 6,450,750. Heyder teaches a processing system comprising a front-end portion (264) maintained at atmospheric pressure, a loadlock chamber (260) maintained at vacuum, a transfer chamber (216) and a process chamber comprising side-by-side processing stations (240) (Fig. 5). Further, a handling robot (214) extends in a direction of the stations for provide and retrieve wafers (5, 8-55).
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