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 “Remarks”, filed May 7th 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Goto (US 9947566 B2), further in view of Hashimoto (US 20060215152 A1).
Goto discloses a substrate processing apparatus but fails to disclose wherein each of the attachments has a substantially L-shape as viewed from the alignment direction.
However, Hashimoto teaches a workpiece processing apparatus wherein each of the attachments has a substantially L-shaped as viewed from the alignment direction.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (US 9947566 B2) in view of Hashimoto (US 20060215152 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Goto discloses a substrate holding apparatus (see Fig. 2) comprising a base (25; see Fig. 8); and holders (10A-10E; see Fig. 8) attached to the base to hold a substrate, wherein the holders are aligned in a predetermined alignment direction (see Fig. 8 for holders aligned in a predetermined alignment direction), and is attached to the base so as to be detachable in parallel with a reference plane as a virtual plane crossing the alignment direction (see Fig. 8), each of the holders has an attachment to be attached to the base and a holding portion that holds the substrate (see Fig. 8), the base (25; see Fig. 8) has sides facing directions perpendicular to the alignment direction (see Fig. 8), the holding portions are aligned with the base in a first direction of the directions perpendicular to the alignment direction (see Fig. 10), the sides include a first side and a second side (see Fig. 10), with the first side and the second side facing opposite directions and the first side and the second side facing directions perpendicular to the first direction (see Fig. 10), and the attachments are alternatively attached to the first side and the second side in an order of the holders being aligned in the alignment direction (see Col. 36, lines 50-65).
PNG
media_image1.png
575
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Goto fails to disclose wherein each of the attachments has a substantially L-shaped as viewed from the alignment direction.
However, Hashimoto teaches a workpiece processing apparatus wherein each of the attachments (44a-44c; hands) has a substantially L-shaped as viewed from the alignment direction (see Fig. 1 and Para. 0028).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein each of the attachments has a substantially L-shaped as viewed from the alignment direction on the substrate processing apparatus of Goto, as taught by Hashimoto, in order to securely transfer the wafers to rotation arms (see Para. 0028).
Regarding claim 7, Goto, in view of Hashimoto, discloses the substrate processing apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein each of the holders has an inclination adjuster that adjusts inclination with respect to the base (see Col. 22, lines 50-60).
Regarding claim 8, Goto, in view of Hashimoto, discloses the substrate processing apparatus as claimed in claim 7, wherein the inclination adjuster includes inclination adjusters disposed at positions at each of the holders (see Col. 22, lines 50-60).
Regarding claim 9, Goto, in view of Hashimoto, discloses the substrate processing apparatus as claimed in claim 7, wherein the inclination adjuster (see Col. 22, lines 50-60) is located at a position operable from a direction parallel with the reference plane with each of the holders attached to the base (see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 10, Goto, in view of Hashimoto, discloses the substrate processing apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the base has a linear guide (11) having a slide block (62) and a rail (63) guiding the slide block in the alignment direction, and each of the holders is attached to the slide block such that a position thereof in the alignment direction is adjustable (see Col. 22, lines 10-30 and Fig. 8-10).
Regarding claim 11, Goto, in view of Hashimoto, discloses the substrate processing apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein an attachment block (12A-12E) used to attach each of the holders (10A-10E) is attached to the slide block (62), and each of the holders is attached to the slide block by attaching to the attachment block (see Fig. 8-10).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (US 9947566 B2) in view of Hashimoto (US 20060215152 A1), further in view of So (JP 2006045632 A).
Regarding claim 6, Goto, in view of Hashimoto, discloses the substrate processing apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Goto fails to disclose wherein the holders are fixed to the base with a bolt, and a screw hole extends in parallel with the reference plane, the screw hole being located at the base such that the bolt is screwed therein.
However, So teaches a vapor deposition apparatus wherein the holders are fixed to the base with a bolt, and a screw hole extends in parallel with the reference plane, the screw hole being located at the base such that the bolt is screwed therein (see Page 7, Para. 5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the holders are fixed to the base with a bolt, and a screw hole extends in parallel with the reference plane, the screw hole being located at the base such that the bolt is screwed therein on the substrate processing apparatus of Goto, in view of Hashimoto, as taught by So, in order securely fix the substrate holder to the base.
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 REHMAN A QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-6262. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-5:00pm.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
/REHMAN A QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights