DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 11/19/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1, 3-14, 16-17 are currently pending. Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, and 16 are amended.
Claims 2 and 15 are cancelled.
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, see page 5, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the Thompson reference shows that the tram 156 is moving in the machine direction and not the transverse direction, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Koyanagi teaches that the tanks are arranged in a first direction (that is, a transverse direction). By substituting Koyanagi’s elevation rotation structure 26 with Yamaguchi’s sub-conveying mechanism 43, the result would be a first conveyer traveling in a first/transverse direction (essentially, rotating Yamaguchi’s tanks and sub-conveying mechanism 43 by 90°). The Thompson reference was used to show that a drive space can be on the side and below a treatment area, and was not used to demonstrate the travel direction as the travel direction of the first conveyer is already demonstrated by the combination of Yamaguchi and Koyanagi.
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, 3, 7-9, 11-14, and 16-17 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) and Thompson et al. U.S. Patent 5,996,241 (henceforth referred to as Thompson).
As to claim 1, (Currently Amended) 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) that are arranged in a first direction and in which a substrate can be placed;
a first conveyor (FIG. 1 paragraph [0027] sub-conveying mechanism 43);
a second conveyor (FIG. 1 paragraph [0027] main conveying mechanism 17) that moves the substrate in a second direction (FIG. 1 paragraph [0027] main conveying mechanism 17 moves in a direction indicated by a long arrow), the second conveyor being separate from the first conveyor (FIG. 1 paragraph [0029] main conveying mechanism 17 and sub-conveying mechanism 43 are separate); and
a vertical conveyor (FIG. 1 paragraph [0027] sub-conveying mechanism 43 has lifters 11, 13, and 15) that is connected to the first conveyor and vertically moves the substrate (FIG. 1 paragraph [0027] lifters 11, 13, and 15 are attached to sub-conveying mechanism 43), wherein
a first actuator (paragraph [0027] in order for sub-conveying mechanism 43 to move back and forth in a horizontal direction, there must be an actuator or motor moving it back and forth) of the first conveyor and a second actuator (paragraph [0027] in order for main conveying mechanism 17 to move back and forth in a horizontal direction, there must be an actuator or motor moving it back and forth) of the second conveyor are respectively arranged in drive spaces separated from a processing space accessible to the first tank and the second tank (the actuators are arranged in drive spaces separated from a processing space, and are in a space in which the conveyers would be accessible to the tanks),
the first actuator is arranged in a first drive space (paragraph [0027] the first actuator would be arranged in a space indicated by the short arrow in FIG. 1), and the second actuator is arranged in a second drive space (paragraph [0027] the second actuator would be arranged in a space indicated by the long arrow in FIG. 1),
wherein the second direction is a machine direction (FIG. 1 paragraph [0027] main conveying mechanism 17 moves in a direction indicated by a long arrow, which reads on the claimed machine direction.).
Yamaguchi differs from the instant claim in failing to teach the first and second tank are arranged in a first direction, and that a first conveyer moves in the first direction to move the substrate in the first direction, the first drive space is provided on a side and below openings of the first tank and the second tank, and the first direction is a transverse 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 paragraph [0047] substrate cleaning processing robots 16 are arranged at intermediate positions between the two rows of cleaning tanks 10a and 11a, 10b, and 11b, and 10c and 11c, respectively. The robots, which read on the claimed modules, consist of a cleaning tank 10 and 11 which are arranged in a first direction), and the first direction is a transverse direction (FIG. 1 the tanks 10a and 11a, 10b, and 11b, and 10c and 11c are arranged in a first direction, which is a transverse direction).
The combination of Yamaguchi and Koyanagi would be able to teach that a first conveyer 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 subconveying mechanism 43 as taught by Yamaguchi can be used to transfer the wafers in place of Koyanagi’s elevation rotation structure 26, as linear delivery mechanisms is just one of the alternative ways to transfer wafers between tanks.
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/transverse 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/transverse direction can reduce contamination as the main conveying mechanism 17 would only pass over one tank of each module.
Thompson teaches a similar substrate processing module (FIG. 1 processing system 40). Thompson teaches the first drive space (FIG. 13 column 10 line 50 tram 156 moves along a guide track, which is composed of guide bars 158 and 159) is provided on a side and below openings of the first tank and the second tank (FIG. 13 guide track is shown on the side and below processing spaces 131 and 132).
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 the first drive space provided below the openings of the first and second tanks as taught by Thompson. Having the first drive space provided along the back and below allows the mechanical arm assembly to extend into cantilevered positions to reach processing stations with good positional stability (Thompson column 10 lines 54-57).
As to claim 3, (Currently Amended) Yamaguchi further teaches the second drive space is provided on a rear side in the first direction with respect to the processing space (FIG. 1 the second drive space is provided on a rear side in the first direction with respect to the processing space).
As to claim 7, (Currently Amended) Yamaguchi further teaches the second drive space can be connected to another module (FIG. 1 paragraph [0027] main conveying mechanism 17 can convey the plurality of substrates W to each of the treating units 5, 7, and 9, which read on the claimed modules).
As to claim 8, (Currently Amended) Yamaguchi further teaches the second conveyor further comprises a rotary actuator that rotates a chuck portion for holding the substrate (FIG. 1 paragraph [0028] two movable arms 17a hold the substrates and swing open to release the substrates. In order for the movable arms 17a to swing open, there must be a rotary actuator that can open and close the movable arms 17a), and wherein the rotary actuator is arranged in the second drive space (the rotary actuator is arranged in the second drive space).
As to claim 9, (Previously Presented) Yamaguchi further teaches a vertical actuator of the vertical conveyor is arranged in the first drive space (if a plane were to exist in a first and vertical direction to represent the first drive space, the vertical actuator would be in line with the first drive space).
As to claim 11, (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).
As to claim 12, (Previously Presented) Yamaguchi and Koyanagi further teaches another module 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 13, (Previously Presented) Yamaguchi, Koyanagi and Thompson further teach the substrate processing module according to claim 1 (see above); and another module connected to the substrate processing module in the second direction (Yamaguchi FIG. 1 paragraph [0026] buffer section 2 is connected to the substrate treating device 1 in the second direction).
As to claim 14, (Previously Presented) Yamaguchi further teaches the first conveyor and the second conveyor receive and deliver the substrate to each other (FIG. 1 paragraphs [0027] and [0028] each substrate W can be delivered between the main conveying mechanism 17 and the lifters 11, 13, and 15 of the sub-conveying mechanism 43).
As to claim 16, (Currently Amended) Yamaguchi further teaches the second conveyor moves in the second direction to move the substrate in the second direction (paragraph [0027] main conveying mechanism 17 moves in a direction and in a range indicated by a long arrow, which reads on the claimed second direction).
As to claim 17, (Previously Presented) The combination of Yamaguchi and Koyanagi further teach the first conveyor moves linearly (Yamaguchi FIG. 1 sub-conveying mechanism 43 moves linearly) in the first direction (Koyanagi shows that the tanks can be arranged a first direction. The sub-conveying mechanism 43 of Yamaguchi can be used to convey the wafers into the cleaning tanks) and the second conveyor moves linearly in the second direction (Yamaguchi FIG. 1 main conveying mechanism 17 moves linearly in the second direction).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi U.S. Publication 2018/0090341 (henceforth referred to as Yamaguchi), Koyanagi JP2002359225 (henceforth referred to as Koyanagi), and Thompson et al. U.S. Patent 5,996,241 (henceforth referred to as Thompson) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Davis et al. U.S. Publication 2002/0164232 (henceforth referred to as Davis).
As to claim 4, (Currently Amended) Yamaguchi further teaches a rear wall provided behind the processing space (FIG. 1 shows a wall behind the processing space).
Yamaguchi differs from the instant claim in failing to teach the second drive space is provided behind the rear wall.
Davis teaches a similar substrate processing module (FIG. 1B paragraph [0031] processing system 10). Davis teaches the second drive space is provided behind the rear wall (FIG. 1B paragraph [0064] robotic conveyer is on a mounting beam or rail 282, which is outside the processing stations 290).
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, Koyanagi, and Thompson to have the second drive space arranged behind the rear wall as taught by Davis to protect the robotic conveyer from splashing or contamination of the processing stations.
As to claim 6, (Previously Presented) The combination of Yamaguchi and Davis further teach the second conveyor includes an arm extending forward from the second drive space and passing through an opening provided in the rear wall (Davis FIG. 1B paragraphs [0065] and [0066] wafer conveying system transports the wafers to the appropriate processing stations 290 by reaching through an opening in the wall), and a chuck portion connected to the arm and arranged above the first tank (Yamaguchi FIG. 1 paragraph [0028] arms 17a read on the claimed chuck portion and is arranged above 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), Koyanagi JP2002359225 (henceforth referred to as Koyanagi), Thompson et al. U.S. Patent 5,996,241 (henceforth referred to as Thompson), and Davis et al. U.S. Publication 2002/0164232 (henceforth referred to as Davis) as applied to claim 4 above, in further view of Hanson et al. U.S. Publication 2002/0009357 (henceforth referred to as Hanson).
As to claim 5, (Original) Yamaguchi, Koyanagi, Thompson and Davis differ from the instant claim in failing to teach the rear wall has an exhaust port for exhausting atmosphere of the processing space to the outside.
Hanson teaches a similar substrate processing module (FIG. 1 paragraph [0032] semiconductor wafer processing tool 10). Hanson teaches an exhaust port (paragraph [0040] exhaust ducts may be coupled with each of the processing modules 19).
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, Koyanagi, Thompson, and Davis, with an exhaust port as taught by Hanson in order to draw in supplied clean air (paragraph [0040]).
Hanson does not teach that the exhaust port is on the rear wall. However, absent the demonstration of any new or unobvious results, the claimed configuration is considered by Examiner to be prima facie obvious as a rearrangement of parts. It is old and well known to rearrange parts, with no change in their respective functions, due to size/space design criteria, the manufacturing expense thereof or purely for aesthetics. See MPEP § 2144.04, VI, C. Rearrangement of Parts.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi U.S. Publication 2018/0090341 (henceforth referred to as Yamaguchi), Koyanagi JP2002359225 (henceforth referred to as Koyanagi), and Thompson et al. U.S. Patent 5,996,241 (henceforth referred to as Thompson) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Iwama JPH08102457 (henceforth referred to as Iwama).
As to claim 10, (Previously Presented) Yamaguchi further teaches each of the first tank and the second tank is any of a liquid chemical tank for processing the substrate with liquid chemical (paragraph [0027] treating 5a, 7a, and 9a are etching tanks with etching liquid), a cleaning tank for cleaning the substrate (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 substrate with liquid chemical and a function of cleaning the substrate.
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 substrate with liquid chemical and a function of cleaning the substrate (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, Koyanagi, and Thompson 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]).
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 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
Prosecution Insights