DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 02/02/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1, 3-14 are currently pending. Claim 12 has been previously withdrawn.
Claim 2 has been previously cancelled. Claims 5-6 are amended. Claim 14 is new.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 5 and 6 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the Koyanagi reference was used to show that a first tank and a second tank can be arranged in a first direction. Koyanagi was not relied upon to show transferring of the wafer between the two tanks. Even in Koyanagi’s arrangement where the tanks are arranged in a first direction, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the linear conveyors between the tanks since Yamaguchi teaches that transferring between tanks with a linear conveyor is known in the art and would have been expected to achieve the desired transfer between the tanks.
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 1, 4, 7, 10-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi U.S. Publication 2018/0090341 (henceforth referred to as Yamaguchi) in view of Koyanagi JP2002359225 (henceforth referred to as Koyanagi).
As to claim 1, (Previously Presented) Yamaguchi teaches a substrate processing module comprising:
a first tank and a second tank (FIG. 1 paragraph [0027] tanks 5a, 5b, 7a, 7b, 9a and 9b) in which a plurality of substrates can be placed (FIG. 1 paragraph [0027] a plurality of substrates Ware moved and treated in the tanks);
a first conveyor that moves linearly (FIG. 1 paragraph [0027] sub-conveying mechanism 43 can move horizontally);
a second conveyor that moves linearly in a second direction intersecting the first direction to move the substrates linearly in the second direction (FIG. 1 paragraph [0027] main conveying mechanism 17 moves in a direction indicated by a long arrow); and
a vertical conveyor that vertically moves the substrates (paragraph [0027] the sub-conveying mechanisms 43 also vertically move the plurality of substrates W in order to immerse the plurality of substrates W into the treating tanks),
wherein the vertical conveyor is connected to the first conveyor (FIG. 1 sub-conveying mechanism 43 reads on the vertical conveyor and the first conveyor as it can move vertically and horizontally), and
wherein the substrate processing module is configured to allow connection in the second direction to a second module (FIG. 1 treating units 5, 7, 9 are modules that allow connection in the second direction).
Yamaguchi differs from the instant claim in failing to teach a first tank and a second tank are arranged in a first direction, and that a first conveyor moves in the first direction to move the substrates in the first direction and the first conveyor moves the vertical conveyor in the first direction.
Koyanagi teaches a similar substrate processing module (FIG. 1 paragraph [0030] cleaning section B for cleaning wafers). Koyanagi teaches the first and second tank are arranged in a first direction (FIG. 1 tanks 11a-11c and 10a-10c, which read on the first and second tanks, are arranged in a first direction).
The combination of Yamaguchi and Koyanagi would be able to teach that a first conveyor moves in the first direction to move the substrate in the first direction. The tanks of Yamaguchi can be arranged in a first direction as taught by Koyanagi (paragraph [0030]). In order to transfer the wafers between the tanks that are arranged in a first direction, the sub-conveying mechanism 43 as taught by Yamaguchi can be used to transfer the wafers, as linear delivery mechanisms is just one of the alternative ways to transfer wafers between tanks. As the first conveyor moves in the first direction, it would move the vertical conveyor in the first direction as well.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate processing module as taught by Yamaguchi with tanks that can be arranged in a first direction as taught by Koyanagi. Having the tanks arranged in a first direction can reduce travel time as the main conveying mechanism would only need to pass over one tank per module. Additionally, having the tanks arranged in a first direction can reduce contamination as the main conveying mechanism 17 would only pass over one tank of each module.
As to claim 4, (Previously Presented) Yamaguchi further teaches an actuator of the second conveyor is used in common with the second module (FIG. 1 paragraph [0027] main conveying mechanism 17 movable in a direction indicated by a long arrow in order to convey the plurality of substrates to each of the treating units 5, 7, and 9. The second conveyor is used in common with the modules).
As to claim 7, (Previously Presented) Yamaguchi and Koyanagi further teach the first tank is arranged on a front side in the first direction (Koyanagi FIG. 1 paragraph [0032] front cleaning tank row 11 is arranged on a front side),
the second tank is arranged on a rear side in the first direction (Koyanagi FIG. 1 paragraph [0032] rear cleaning tank row 10 is arranged on a rear side), and
the second conveyor moves the substrates above the first tank (Yamaguchi’s main conveying mechanism 17 can move above the first tanks in the same manner that Koyanagi’s transport robot 15 moves the substrates above tank row 11).
As to claim 10, (Previously Presented) Yamaguchi and Koyanagi further teach the second module connected to the substrate processing module in the second direction is any one of a loading module, an unloading module, a drying module (Koyanagi FIG. 1 paragraph [0031] drying device 12), and a substrate processing module (Yamaguchi FIG. 1 paragraph [0027] treating units 5, 7, and 9 read on the claimed substrate processing module).
As to claim 11, (Previously Presented) Yamaguchi and Koyanagi further teach a substrate processing apparatus comprising: the substrate processing module according to claim 1 (see above); and the second module connected to the substrate processing module in the second direction (Yamaguchi FIG. 1 treating units 5, 7, and 9, which read on the claimed substrate processing modules, are arranged in a second direction).
As to claim 13, (Previously Presented) Yamaguchi and Koyanagi further teach the first conveyor moves the substrates directly above the first and second tanks (Yamaguchi FIG. 1 sub-conveying mechanism 43 moves the substrates directly above the tanks) and the second conveyor moves the substrates directly above the first tank (Yamaguchi’s main conveying mechanism 17 would move the substrates directly above the first tank in the same manner that Koyanagi’s transport robot 15 moves the substrates above the first tanks).
As to claim 14, (New) Yamaguchi further teaches the first conveyor, the second conveyor are distinct conveyors (FIG. 1 sub-conveying mechanism 43 and main conveying mechanism 17 are distinct).
Yamaguchi’s sub-conveying mechanism 43 does not teach that the first conveyor and the vertical conveyor are distinct. However, Koyanagi shows that transport robot 15 only travels on linear rail 20 (a horizontal direction) and that transport robot 15 are equipped with holding structure 21, which is capable of moving in an up and down direction (paragraphs [0041], [0044], and [0046]). Koyanagi’s transport robot 15 and holding structure 21 can only move in the horizontal direction and vertical direction, respectively, indicating that there are two distinct conveyors for their respective movement. If Yamaguchi’s sub-conveying mechanism 43, were replaced with the transport robot 15 and holding structure 21 of Koyanagi, it would result in the first conveyor, the second conveyor, and the vertical conveyor being three distinct conveyors.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi U.S. Publication 2018/0090341 (henceforth referred to as Yamaguchi) and Koyanagi JP2002359225 (henceforth referred to as Koyanagi) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Ohshimo et al. U.S. Publication 2004/0129300 (henceforth referred to as Ohshimo).
As to claim 3, (Previously Presented) Yamaguchi further teaches the second conveyor is separated from the first conveyor (FIG. 1 paragraph [0029] main conveying mechanism 17 and sub conveying mechanism 43 are separate).
Yamaguchi and Koyanagi differ from the instant claim in failing to teach that the second conveyor is located above the first conveyor.
Ohshimo teaches a similar substrate processing module (FIG. 5 paragraph [0041] substrate processing apparatus 1). Ohshimo teaches a second conveyor above the first conveyor (FIG. 5 paragraph [0056] shuttle 3 is at a position higher than transporting devices RT1, RT2, and RT3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate processing module as taught by Yamaguchi and Koyanagi with a second conveyor above a first conveyor as taught by Ohshimo as it can save floor space by conveying above the tanks as opposed to the side of the tanks.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi U.S. Publication 2018/0090341 (henceforth referred to as Yamaguchi) and Koyanagi JP2002359225 (henceforth referred to as Koyanagi) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Carlson et al. U.S. Publication 2014/0060434 (henceforth referred to as Carlson).
As to claim 5, (Currently Amended) Yamaguchi further teaches a rail supports a main body of an actuator of the second conveyor in a movable manner (FIG. 1 a rail supports a main body of the main conveyer 17).
Yamaguchi and Koyanagi differ from the instant claim in failing to teach a respective rail is provided for each of the substrate processing module and the second module, and when the substrate processing module and the second module are connected, the rail of the substrate processing module and the rail of the second module form a continuous track in the second direction
Carlson teaches a similar substrate processing module (FIG. 1 paragraph [0024] substrate
processing tool 100). Carlson teaches a respective rail is provided for each of the substrate processing module and the second module, and when the substrate processing module and the second module are connected, the rail of the substrate processing module and the rail of the second module form a continuous track in the second direction (paragraph [0035] portions of the track 120 may be mounted to a bottom surface of each individual module such that the complete track 120 is formed after assembly of all the modules in a linear array).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate processing module as taught by Yamaguchi and Koyanagi with respective rails as taught by Carlson. Having each module contain their own respective rails would make it easier to replace damaged sections of the rail.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi U.S. Publication 2018/0090341 (henceforth referred to as Yamaguchi) and Koyanagi JP2002359225 (henceforth referred to as Koyanagi) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Xu et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0207106 (henceforth referred to as Xu).
As to claim 6, (Currently Amended) Yamaguchi and Koyanagi differ from the instant claim in failing to teach a pair of side walls sandwiching the first tank and the second tank in the second direction, wherein the side walls have openings through which the second conveyor passes, and the side walls are fixed at corresponding locations.
Xu teaches a similar substrate treatment apparatus (FIG. 1 paragraph [0029] substrate processing apparatus). Xu teaches a pair of side walls sandwiching the first tank and the second tank in the second direction (paragraph [0033] cleaning chamber 18 are partitioned by a partition wall 41 and 42. Figures 1 and 3 show that the walls are in the second direction), and the side walls are fixed at corresponding locations (FIG. 3 the partition walls are at fixed locations).
The combination of Yamaguchi and Xu would result in the second conveyor of Yamaguchi to pass through the openings of the sidewalls as taught by Xu.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate processing module as taught by Yamaguchi and Koyanagi with walls with openings as taught by Xu. It is known in the art to use walls to isolate a module in order to limit splashing and reduce contamination. It would have obvious to have openings in the walls to allow a transfer mechanism to move through the modules.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi U.S. Publication 2018/0090341 (henceforth referred to as Yamaguchi) and Koyanagi JP2002359225 (henceforth referred to as Koyanagi) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Iwama JPH08102457 (henceforth referred to as Iwama).
As to claim 8, (Previously Presented) Yamaguchi further teaches each of the first tank and the second tank is any of a liquid chemical tank for processing the substrates with liquid chemical (paragraph [0027] treating 5a, 7a, and 9a are etching tanks with etching liquid), a cleaning tank for cleaning the substrates (paragraph [0027] treating tanks 5b, 7b, and 9b are washing treating tanks).
Yamaguchi and Koyanagi differ from the instant claim in failing to teach a one-bath processing tank having a function of processing the substrates with liquid chemical and a function of cleaning the substrates.
Iwama teaches a similar substrate treatment apparatus (FIG. 1 paragraph [0023] cleaning processing apparatus 1). Iwama teaches a one-bath processing tank having a function of processing the substrates with liquid chemical and a function of cleaning the substrates (paragraph [0031] chemical cleaning occurs in chemical tank 202).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate processing module as taught by Yamaguchi and Koyanagi with a one-bath processing tank as taught by Iwama. Having a tank that both processes and cleans a substrate can simplify the treatment process. Additionally, different chemicals can be added to a cleaning unit according to the type of contamination that is present on the wafer surface (paragraph [0032]).
As to claim 9, (Original) Koyanagi further teaches the first tank is a cleaning tank arranged on a front side in the first direction (FIG. 1 paragraph [0032] front cleaning tank row 11 has ultrapure water as cleaning liquid), and the second tank is a liquid chemical tank arranged on a rear side in the first direction (FIG. 1 paragraph [0032] rear cleaning tank row 10 uses chemicals as cleaning liquids).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LAUREN G ORTA whose telephone number is (703)756-5455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/L.G.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711